This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Article closed as user consensus is against creating article, due to minimal impacts, and also system has dissipated.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 16:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Hello, I’ve noticed every Greek storm in 2005 has an article even if there is no impacts on land. So should that still be done for 2020, and should we make Epsilon an article even though it will likely only have minimal effects on land. What do you guys think? Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's kinda premature to say it will only have minimal effects on land, with Bermuda in the track. I think it's a little early to discuss the article. As for 2005 Greeks, all but Epsilon and Zeta affected land, and those two were meteorological oddities. We'll see how the rest of the 2020 storms go. If impacts are minimal, then Epsilon 20 probably won't need an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Agreed with Hurricanehink. Wait until TC watches are issued, and then a article can be created. IMO, a draft can be created in as soon as 12 hours, when the storm intensifies a bit more. ~Destroyeraa🌀 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if impacts in Bermuda are minor to bad an article could be made. Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
See Draft:Tropical storm Epsilon (2020) Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No draft exists. Right now it's too early to have this discussion. We should wait until whatever impacts occur in Bermuda (and perhaps Atlantic Canada in the long run) are known before we make any decision on an article. Yes, all the Greek named storms from 2005 have articles but remember WP:OTHERSTUFF. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
TornadoLGS, yes we are keeping that in mind but right now we’re just discussing the possibility of needing an Epsilon article. Also, we need to remember WP:Crystal Ball because this can turn out to sea or directly hit Bermuda so we’ll have to watch it carefully. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Right. WP:CRYSTAL is also why this discussion is early, since it could still end up being a fish storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Why, though? We don't even need a draft right now because we don't know what kind of impacts the storm will bring to Bermuda, if any. Gumballs678talk 21:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved to correct spot. Anyway, let the draft stay, It'll probably cause some impact within a couple of days. ~Destroyeraa🌀 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I was expecting this discussion, and I feel the same way. No need to publish until we know there will be impacts of note, but a draft is a good idea knowing there might be. (and to be honest, I wish this was precedent because I think it's the best way to avoid articles being created that then result in endless merger wars) DarkSide830 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with them. It is too early to have this type of discussion. Maybe when we see some impact in Bermuda, then we can see about that. Aegeou2 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment/info for the official discussion. The Current Events WikiProject has interest in this discussion. Also commenting that a point about Tropical Storm Epsilon was listed on the October 19, Current Event Portal. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with the draft staying, not sure if we need an article yet. The NHC is still certain the storm's closest approach to Bermuda will be on Friday, so I think we should wait until at least then to see if an article is needed. Gumballs678talk 19:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Just for reference all of the models are currently pretty much in agreement on where the storm is going. [1] The storm is going to be pushed from WNW to NW at some point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The article had been moved out of draftspace and is now redirected until there a change of consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd say put a possible article on hold until Epsilon has already impacted Bermuda – if Epsilon actually does. I don't think a draft has to be made now, as someone could always write an entire article right at the time such a storm becomes notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC) ...Okay I get it, a draft made so a nice written article could be made before publishing it. Just hope someone else unaware of the draft does not steal the creation or the draft effort would be wasted...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The storm has become stronger since then and then NHC has said it has rapidly intensified Alphabet Genius (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Support article now It's a hurricane, it may still rapidly intensify, it's threatening land, and it might break some more records. If Hurricane Epsilon (2005) has an article, this should too.~Destroyeraa🌀 12:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: Epsilon in 2005 received an article because it was a meteorological anomoly and set multiple records for its strength and duration while occurring in December. This Epsilon hasn't really done anything record-breaking. I still say we hold off on the article until its impacts on Bermuda become clearer. Gumballs678talk 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Or the storm could suck up dry air and weaken which is why we have WP:CRYSTAL as we can not predict what the storm will do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, true but its guaranteed to bring some impacts to Bermuda since its already extremely close, whether it be swells or rain-showers. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There is still WP:NORUSH as we are not wikinews. Why not wait until the storm is actually being covered in WP:DEPTH (not just passing mentions) by the sources so we have more to work with? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, as the watch is now a warning and it's strong, we might need a draft sooner than we thought. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that is true, we still should wait (somewhat) and see what happens in terms of impacts, but I am not opposed to someone starting the draft. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm 100% for a draft and 100% against publishing right now. Might as well have a draft ready, but we can't know for sure if impacts will warrant an article. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: I really like the draft, so I think it should be the actual article. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
No... you reverted my edit of turning the published article into a redirect. [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicStormYutu: Thanks. It will be the actual article once Epsilon affects Bermuda.~Destroyeraa🌀 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If Epsilon's life story is no more than: rapidly intensified into a hurricane, approached and brought heavy rain and high surf w/minimum damage to Bermuda, before turning away, became extra tropical on its way toward Iceland; then it does not warrant its own article. Drdpw (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for prematurely moving the article. I didn't know there was a discussion on it. LOL!ChessEric (talk·contribs) 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: The outer bands of Epsilon are starting to affect Bermuda, so should it be the article now? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There's WP:NORUSH. Are there reliable sources with the impacts? If no, then hold off. --intelatitalk 19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicStormYutu: No. It's still too early to judge if it warrants an article yet. Gumballs678talk 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea why editors are in such a rush to get this article made. If the storm has minimal impacts on land then it is not noteworthy. Yes I understand the potential hype of this being a record season but we still have to be encyclopedic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. I am pretty sure that that is the reason why we have it as a draft and not as an actual article yet, so that if the storm does end up becoming notable we can easily move it to the main-space, and if it ends up being a fish storm, we can easily get rid of it, but I am not completely sure, that is just what I thought is being done with the draft. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with it as a draft here, if the storm causes damages and loss of life then it should certainly have an article. For now though the wait continues for the scale of the impacts (if any). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Probably way over the excitement since we are already in the midst of using the Greek alphabet. But I do agree with a lot of people here that there is no need to rush things. By the looks of how this storm is turning out to be, I am personally leaning towards of a no-article stand anyway. Typhoon2013(talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, we definitely need to wait and see what happens, as it is, it still isn't completely clear if Bermuda will get any severe or major impacts from the storm (Based of some of the forecasts I have seen), but then again it could end up being a major storm and have enough impacts to be article-worthy. Patience is definitely key. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It definitely should get an article after it affects bermuda because it is a major and is very very large with winds of Gale force 435 n mi from center. Minnesota. It will affect Bermuda but I understand if you want to wait untill it happens. 71.172.254.114 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, imho every major tropical cyclone should get an article, but we should definitely wait to see this one dissipate (I have a feeling our European friends could see some damage from this one) Gex4pls (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Because most EPAC storms do nothing to affect land. Hurricane Douglas (2020) has an article an it only caused minimal damage. However, a merge discussion regarding that article was very speedily closed. I have to reiterate that Epsilon 2005 has an article, why not this have an article? Epsilon 2005 did not affect land. ~Destroyeraa🌀 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree some major hurricanes stay away from land and are harmless and so are not a concern to the general people.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This one will affect Bermuda, and when it does, it'll be moved to mainspace. ~Destroyeraa🌀 23:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't really favor having an article if effects are minimal, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait for the storm to dissipate (once again, I have a gut feeling this could cause some damage in europe) to discuss this further. Gex4pls (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I will try to stay on topic, but this basically leads all the way back to the Tropical Storm Aurther dilemma. Especially how impacts are minimal and how it has its own article ETC. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
What bothers me the most are legitimate policy points brought up are being ignored in favor of WP:OSE arguments amounting to whataboutism, and WP:CRYSTAL assumptions that this is going to be a "major" storm. You may be right that this is a larger problem that needs to be addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, they are being ignored, and there is definitely some things that need to be addressed as @Knowledgekid87: stated above. I understand that this storm is definitely an oddity from a meteorological standpoint, and it is a powerful storm, but we need to remember that there is more than just oddities and rareness that need to be taken into account. As many have stated above, we need to wait until the system has dissipated or at least impacted all of the areas in its path before we really can see if it is for sure article-worthy. Even so, if the storm does not get an article, we can still fit some of the things @TriplyExpositioned: said, like how it was an oddity, as we could fit that. For now, let's just keep the draft and update it regularly, and when things are all said and done, we can make a clearer decision. I am all for an article if there are enough impacts and records, but if the article only ends up being a few sentences long, I would rather just have it on the main page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 04:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually this anomaly associated with Epsilon may make this hurricane notable, as explained by TriplyExpositioned. Together with the article from The Washington Post about the hurricane, this shows that experts have acknowledged this anomaly. The fact being Epsilon intensified in excess of 45 mph within 24 hours further east than any other hurricane from the second half of October onwards.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
True, it just depends on if that is the only thing notable about the storm. I definitely agree about what you said, but if that is the only thing about it, then it still may not get an article. For example, Hurricane Pablo in 2019 was anomalous for reaching hurricane strength so far north and east, but since it did not really have too many impacts, it never got a article. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean that's probably a bit too obscure of a record to alone require an article without damage. It's probably not more notable then Pablo, as Weatherman noted. I think once you start getting into halves of a month you're really pulling hairs as far as truly notable records go. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It may be worth mentioning in the Epsilon's section, but I don't think breaking a record with a lot of qualifiers is particularly notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having an open mind, considering the record has been cited by experts and news websites so it is notable enough. --CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but Epsilon is a giant fishspinner now. Are we publishing the article or not!? If not, I don't see the reason why we are still editing it.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 03:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As Epsilon's impact has been minimal all around and that its noteworthy aspects are adequately covered in the season article, I suggest that the draft be deleted. Drdpw (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd also lean against publishing. The only thing I'd wonder about is if Post-Tropical Cyclone Epsilon ends up having impacts in Europe, but that's delving way into CRYSTALBALL territory. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, plus it will probably have a section in the 2020-2021 European Windstorm article if it does end up impacting Europe, so I think the best bet would just to delete it as the users above said. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 04:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd still be inclined to say the hurricane was notable, and the reasons given for the storm not being notable take climatic records with little regard which I disagree with.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicallyDeranged: I would be inclined to say that the climatic records cited above are not notable, trival and just past of the normal trivia associated with Atlantic hurricanes. As a result of this and minimal impact in Bermuda, I would argue that Epsilon would be better off without an article.Jason Rees (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Epsilon should have an article. Just like the other epsilon, it was a meteorological oddity. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
What is perceived to be notable or not seems to be an opinion and I am entitled to one. If records were always perceived to be trivial, all the earliest formation records already in the article would need to be removed. :-) And the record has been acknowledged by experts so I give merit to that.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The information in this case is trivial and not being widely carried. The draft should be deleted so we can prepare for a likely article on Zeta heading into the gulf. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's not ready for an article, but I'd hold off on deleting the draft just yet, since there could still be impacts in Europe. No harm in waiting a few days. This won't interfere with Zeta; we've dealt with simultaneous storms before. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The draft is ripe for deletion as Epsilon'S brief and somewhat unremarkable life draws to a close. Sometime in the next 24–36 hours Epsilon will become extratropical and then merge with another extratropical low. That low may well end up impacting Europe, in which case it will probably have a section in the 2020-2021 European Windstorm article. Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hold up. Some TCs, like Ophelia 2017 or Leslie have articles only because they affected Europe as an extratropical cyclone. Let's hold off on deletion for a few days-if no significant impacts occur, then we delete the draft. ~Destroyeraa🌀 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favor of promoting the draft. As someone mentioned above, it is a meteorological rarity. We could always go for AfD, but I think it would pass. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 01:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I never said I was against the article. All I ask is that we decide if it will be published or not. Otherwise, I don't see a reason for me to waste my time on this anymore.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 02:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Finding the delete suggestions very inconsiderate and unfound here.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record I am either in favor of deleting this draft per @Drdpw: and @Jason Rees: or waiting until Europeanimpacts become known. Reasons for deletion include minimal damage, no deaths, and a trivial oddity that can be summed up in 2 or 3 sentences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and as I and others mentioned above, it will most likely have a section in the 2020-21 European windstorm season article even if the draft gets deleted, plus we can add any notability from the storm to its section on the hurricane season article that we are on now.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that this draft was submitted for review [3]. It looks like this thing is heading towards MfD or AfD at the rate things are going. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I am for keeping and moving the draft since I worked on it thoroughly, but Wikipedia is not always bout personal feelings. Therefore, I am for deleting the draft per @Knowledgekid87, TornadoLGS, and Drdpw: and others.~Destroyeraa🌀 19:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
No editor here wants to see the hard work of others get destroyed. In retrospect this should have stuck to a discussion and we should have waited for events to unfold. Why invest the emotion into a work when you are faced with unknowns surrounding its future? It was a noble effort and I thank you and everyone who worked on it greatly, but I just wish WP:TOOSOON could be followed more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Still regard the hurricane is notable as its formation was an anomaly, while a few other users earlier in the discussion label such a thing as a 'meteorological oddity'.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This whole season has been notable as a whole. If scholarly sources write about Epsilon in the future with further analysis then maybe we can expand on what we already have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: NHC expects Epsilon to merge with another ex cyclone before hitting Iceland. The other cyclone will absorb Epsilon and then probably hit Europe. Thus, it’s a lost cause saying Epsilon will hit Iceland and Europe. Feel free to send the draft to MfD. ~Destroyeraa🌀 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's hold off on the MFD for a bit. Epsilon was a large hurricane, there could've been some erosion and other marine impacts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely. So far, no reports of widespread power outages or trees down on Bermuda - not much news even from Bermuda's own news companies such as Royal Gazette. ~Destroyeraa🌀 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, the island experienced only tropical storm force sustained winds of 30-40 knots and large ocean swells. Drdpw (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's just close this. Dolly, Edouard, Gonzalo, Josephine, Kyle, Omar, Rene, Vicky, Wilfred, and Epsilon don't have articles; Arthur, Bertha, Cristobal, Fay, Hanna, Isaias, Laura, Marco, Nana, Paulette, Sally, Teddy, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Zeta, do. Consensus has been reached. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 10:00, 26 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.
EX-Epsilon
I think we should re-open the possibility of an Epsilon article since Ireland has already issued warnings and are expecting strong gales and flooding. We should hold off on deleting the draft for now. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I have commented this at the deletion page HERE and would appreciate if you did too. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it Epsilon or the system Epsilon merged with? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Epsilon dissipated, it's a new storm. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, while its energy fed a developing extratropical low, located south of Iceland, Epsilon has dissipated. Drdpw (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please change "impacts" to "impact" because it's not really a count noun. 64.203.186.73 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done It very much is a count noun, especially as used in media coverage of this topic.--Jasper Deng(talk) 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
What? In English, we say "the storm had little impact" or "the storm had a huge impact", meaning that it did little damage or did a lot of damage. The only way "impacts" would be plural if you were functionally using it as a synonym for "landfall", i.e. it hit somewhere more than once, which wouldn't be true of this storm and Bermuda. 64.203.186.71 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Impacts is not incorrect, though it does sound odd to the ear, it's inclusive of the impact of water, impact of wind, impact on property damage, impact on human life, impact on infrastructure, etc. Drdpw (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The way you're using impact functions differently than what you posted. "Impacts" implies that there wasn't one singular area that was impacted, but rather, multiple. The sentence "generally minor impacts recorded" reads weird, but that could also just be how it was copied over. If the sentence were to be re-written "Hurricane Epsilon had little impact on Bermuda" it would be acceptable and gramatically correct, as would "Hurricane Epsilon brought minor impacts to Bermuda". Gumballs678talk 22:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I've removed "impacts" altogether and wrote there were no reports of damage. Would this help?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I would have really appreciated the chance to add in some thoughts on the subject, which wasn't even open for 10 hours.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 01:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Terrible move to delete the whole thing. There was work done in the draft with good intentions and should be kept per User:SmokeyJoe from the MFD page.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment-it ended. "The result of the discussion was: Redirect. (non-admin closure) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)". --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done Tropical cyclone naming is already linked earlier in the lead (from "named storms") and doesn't contain the list of Greek letters, which would be more useful to link here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Trivial Records
Can we agree there are too many trivial records and notes in the page? I would like to propose we take mentions of storms becoming the earliest of their formation number out of their sections in the page. We spend too much time talking about trivial records on the page, and 2005 storms didn't have information about them being the earliest storm of their number to form in their main passages under 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, I'd propose instead that we move all records (with the exception of a couple very notable ones, such as Alpha's landfall) made by the 2020 storms into their articles instead. Even storms that don't have their own articles are already mentioned twice in the summary, so their description isn't needed. For example, Fay's record as the earliest sixth named storm should only be mentioned somewhere in its own article, rather than in its summary on this page. Meanwhile, a storm like Edouard that doesn't have its own article already has its own record as the earliest fifth named storm documented in the infobox under seasonal summary. What do the rest of you think?
By the way, yes I was one who proposed a records article, but I have retracted that suggestion ever since I received information from those who commented.JoeMT615 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
RE:Formation records – As there is an infobox in the summary section noting the various formation records set this season, I would support removing the individual mentions of them from the several storm subsections. I would also be willing to implement such a change if there is consensus for it. Drdpw (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Zeta's Article Nominated for Wikipedia's ITN section
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.
Just a heads up to other editors, the article has been nominated to Wikipedia's In The News (ITN) section. You can participate in the nomination vote Here. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Candidature closed, Zeta was deemed not notable. Meanwhile Typhoon Molave is on ITN.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:50, 30 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.
Notes n1
In the notes it says major to be 111mph. While this may be true, it’s not official. The NHC always put 111mph rounded as 110 as they round to nearest 5 and has to be 112.5 to be major hurricane as they start major at 115.
What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The Saffir-Simpson Wind scale has major hurricanes beginning at 111 mph. However, when the NHC converts the wind speeds from knots to mph, 111 doesn't easily convert, so they use 115 as the threshold. Gumballs678talk 18:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Advisory titles
Moving forward, can we please fill in the full titles of NHC advisories and updates? For example, instead of "Hurricane ZETA" put "Hurricane Zeta Advisory Number 17." That way we can avoid having a dozen or more refs with the same title, which can be confusing. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, but I don't remember off the top of my head how to edit those titles, so if I could get filled in I'd help. JoeMT615 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is the markup for the above stated "Hurricane Zeta Advisory Number 17":
Richard Pasch (October 28, 2020). "Hurricane Zeta Advisory Number 17". nhc.noaa.gov. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
Hope this is helpful. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@WesternAtlanticCentral: No, this is how it needs to be done. It's how we've filled out references in the past, and it's how it needs to be done today. Every GA and FA has advisory citations completely filled out as well. It's understandable that newbies may not understand proper citing and leave out crucial information, but for experienced editors, this kind of lax citing is inexcusable. The reason why I haven't gone through those articles and filled out all of those citations is that I don't have the time to do so right now, otherwise, I would have already done so. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone Needs To Change Timeline For TD29
Tropical Depression 29 formed at 21:00UTC October 31 but on the timeline it begins on November 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SputtyTheSputnik (talk • contribs) 02:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The data for the timeline image shows that it started on October 31, however, because of the way the timeline image works it appears as November 1.Jason Rees (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we need a draft for TD29? Most storms that hit there cause more than 25 deaths, and usually that's notable enough for an article. I also don't want a huge jumble of drafts to form, as they did during Gamma, and for people starting to get mad. I likehurricanes 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we should definitetly make an article for Eta, it's formation is record breaking/tying on it's own (which is usually reason enough for an article, see TS zeta in 2005), and is set to impact a heavily populated area. Gex4pls (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Welp, might as well let someone else do it hereI likehurricanes 03:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The draft exists now. Name wise, Eta is a record-breaker, but not in terms of storm number. It's good to have a draft, but we should definitely wait to move it into mainspace until the impacts are known. There is a lot of uncertainty in the path beyond 72 hours. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Naming date of Eta
@Nova Playz100: This is a matter of time zones. The meteorological community at large, and thus Wikipedia, uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) to determine the calendar date of meteorological events like the naming of Eta. In this case, while it was 11 pm EDT October 31, it was 3 am UTC November 1. Please adhere to this in the future.--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
But almost all hurricanes hit the east coast, not the UK, why use UK time?--SalutV (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The NHC uses UTC for simplicity as the basin covers 8 time zones ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
This article encompasses a huge area. While I don't prefer in displaying UTC time, I can understand it gets confusing referring to multiple time zones, eight as stated above. But I agree that needing to refer a time outside of the basin gets baffling too.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a reason why UTC is referred to as universal coordinated time. Utc is used in every basin because its the time the WMO recognizes, just like how knots are also universal. It's up to the different basins to decide how they're going to convert the time. 0300 utc on November 1 is 11pm on October 31, so even though Eta was named at 11pm on the 31st, because the utc is the official time used, it officially wasn't named until Nov 1. For advisories, the nhc chooses to convert from utc to the respective timezone the storm is in. However, in a storm's tcr, all times are explicitly in utc. Gumballs678talk 11:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
New record
I won't be disappointed if this is trivial, but 2020 is tied with 1969 and 2010 as the season with the second-most hurricanes (12). 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 11:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but being in a 3-way tie for second-most is a trivial distinction, not a record. Drdpw (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yea, I agree. If 2020 reaches a 13th hurricane, pushing past 1969 and 2010 for the 2nd most hurricanes on record, then maybe it would be noteworthy. It's still trivial though. Gumballs678talk 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Auxiliary naming list again
@TribunalMan, Sdslayer100, Drdpw, Typhoon2013, and CrazyC83: We cannot be adding three names every time a storm is named, or we will finish the season with excessive unused names. Can we all agree to respect the HTML comment at the bottom of the section, or at the least, come to a different but firm agreement about when to expand the list?--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
That note is pointless, and inconsistent. Who decides when we're allowed to update the naming list? We changed it from 6 names to 9 names when Delta formed (two-thirds of the way through the listed names). Now Eta has formed putting us OVER the two-thirds mark, and that isn't enough? There also WAS a note previously mentioning to update it once Zeta formed, but everyone threw that to the curb the moment someone tried updating it. Sdslayer100 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that hidden text is not to be used to tell people not to make a certain edit just because you don't want them to. They can be used if there is a local consensus. Do we have a consensus on when to expand the list? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thats what I mean. Before Zeta formed, the note below the list said "Do not add the full list of Greek letters. This will only be necessary if we get to Zeta." I added the names once Zeta formed, and all of a sudden that's not good enough. So I waited until Eta formed, and now we're supposed to wait till Iota??? What's with the insane gap and inconsistency?? Sdslayer100 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdslayer100: What I said earlier still stands. We do not follow the logic "if over 2/3 of list is used then expand list" anywhere. I don't care what we adopt as long as it's sane and has consensus. This is me invoking WP:BRD.--Jasper Deng(talk) 06:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
And what I said earlier still stands. I, personally, don't see the logic in waiting for three entire more storms than the original note said to before expanding the list. In fact, I don't think the ENTIRE current list should be exhausted before adding on to it. Even if you wanna wait until Theta for no reason, whatever, but waiting until Iota?? Why?? I don't see the issue with expanding it now. I don't see what authority you have to determine when it's appropriate to expand the naming list. Sdslayer100talk 08:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I have not been adding three names from the Auxiliary list by any chance. Therefore I believe I shouldn't be part of this discussion. Typhoon2013(talk) 08:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: You didn't, but you reverted Sdslayer100's previous attempt to add it on Zeta's naming, so I think you have a stake in this discussion. @Sdslayer100: We can do something like "if there is only one unused name remaining, add three more", but this would still only have an addition every three storms. The bottom line is that we absolutely cannot be adding names (Greek letters) at a faster rate than storms get named. That is simply excessive. This decision should not be made unilaterally by any of us. Typhoon2013, TornadoLGS, and others I pinged should be participating in this discussion to make a consensus.--Jasper Deng(talk) 08:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Note that I personally think adding three more names after Zeta was fine, but adding three more with Eta, which is only one more storm, is excessive. You undid both mine and Sdslayer100's attempt to add more names after Zeta but I did not contest it. I'm fine that way too. The only thing I am not fine with is a long-term trend of adding storm names at a faster rate than we are getting storms named.--Jasper Deng(talk) 08:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
In my view, it is arbitrary to end the auxiliary list at any given name and add more names when an arbitrary point is reached. The only way not to be arbitrary is to have the entire auxiliary list there (i.e., the entire Greek alphabet), much like the regular A-W list appears at the beginning of the hurricane season. In fact, the title "Auxiliary list" implies that the entire list should be there because, to a reader (as it stands now), it is implied that "Iota" is the end of the auxiliary list and this would be incorrect because it actually ends at "Omega". As for the issue of "excessive unused names" at the end of the year, it is not like this is permanently written in stone; a simple edit can be made to remove the unused names and end the list at the last used name much like 2005. Alternatively, the other way not to be arbitrary is to end the auxiliary list at Eta and then only add names when they form on an ongoing basis. This would also solve the issue of having "excessive unused names" because names would only be added when they are used and needed. TribunalMan (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@TribunalMan: Well, it's not a completely arbitrary decision. The problem with excessive names is not limited to just the end of the season. Come mid-November, for example, it would not make sense to have six unused names, even though more storms could form; no season had that many storms after mid-November and it's unlikely even this season would.--Jasper Deng(talk) 17:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the issue is with "excessive names". There are unused names in (almost) every season. By the same standard, we should only put Arthur, Bertha and Cristobal and wait until those form and then add Dolly, Edouard and Fay and so forth. TribunalMan (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
A naming list that is not tied to a particular year, like the Greeks, but unlike the normal season naming list that was exhausted this year, does not need to have its entirety enumerated, since unused names do not otherwise have a tie to this year. This is the practice employed in the majority of basins other than NHC's, notably excepting the southwest Indian Ocean.--Jasper Deng(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Personal recommendation: I think we should keep the current 2/3-3/4 system, since it is easy to understand and not excessively long. And the expansion of the entire list is not necessary, since we linked the Greek alphabet multiple times, we don't do that every season and I seriously doubt we'll have over 40 named storms. Instead, keep with what we're doing, and once 2020 ends on December 31 (since post-season storms are certainly possible), we'll delete all excess names, as they did in 2005, where the list ends with Zeta, the last named storm. For example, say the last storm of this year is Iota. We'll add three more names in case another storm occurs, and then if they go unused, deleted them so that the list ends with Iota. JoeMT615 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd ensure the last line has at least one name in use or used AFTER expansion before adding another row of names. In this case, add the next three names once we get to Theta (if we do). CrazyC83 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@JoeMT615 and CrazyC83: It's not clear what either of you are suggesting. There's no firm "status quo" at hand because clearly we don't have any consensus yet.--Jasper Deng(talk) 17:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Jasper Deng Sorry if I wasn't very clear, all I'm saying is keep doing what we're doing (add 3 names once we get to the bottom of the list) and then delete whatever's leftover at the end of the list. Like if Eta is the last named storm, delete Theta and Iota at the end of the year. JoeMT615 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, but it should be emphasized that there's clearly disagreement so I wouldn't consider that "what we're doing". Semantics aside, I think that's the most reasonable proposal but Sdslayer100 and TribunalMan might not be okay with it.--Jasper Deng(talk) 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Not everyone has to agree for there to be WP:CONSENSUS. Unanimity is ideal but not required. As long as there is no consensus to change what is currently in place, that means the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. As a result, although I disagree, I have had my opportunity to voice my disagreement and I will ultimately have to accept the fact that there is no consensus to change what is currently in place. TribunalMan (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
All of the edits to add more names were changed back. All of the "undo"s and reversions had to go back to something. If no one changes anything, then what we have now is what will stay. Hence, a status quo does exist and that is the current version of the list. There is really no sense in debating this any further because, as far as I'm concerned, no consensus has come out of this discussion to change what we have now and that is fine with me. TribunalMan (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think no more names need to be added until a Tropical Storm Iota forms, and that, adding three more names (Kappa, Lambda, Mu) at that time would be fine. Drdpw (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Look, it's this simple. Drdpw is right. When we get to the last name of the column, we add another three names. We will likely not get to Kappy or even Lamby, and it isn't encylopedic to assume we'll get to the end of the Greek Alphabet (Chi, Psi, Omega). Anyway, if this season gets to Lambda, I'm retiring from the tropical cyclone part of WP. ~Destroyeraa🌀 02:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this idea. @Sdslayer100 and TribunalMan: A consensus looks like it'll be forming here; you should either contribute to its formation or just respect it.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Please stop pinging me. I have already said in my last two responses that this is fine with me and I accept it. TribunalMan (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm at work at the moment, I'll take time to formally reply in a couple hours Sdslayer100talk 03:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I am in favour of having exactly the next three unused names on the list. As for the columns argument, it should go with the formation of the storms themselves, not on where the columns stop. The last time I checked the article, there were two unused names after Eta – I believe the third name down is to be displayed, so the unused names are Theta, Iota and Kappa.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I could get behind the current proposal of adding the next three storms when we get to the bottom of the column. For the purpose of neatness, I think we should maintain three equal columns for now. Honestly, I'm just glad to see people moving toward a consensus after all the edit warring we've had. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
If we go by the maxima for November/December from previous seasons, that would be five names. Just add the next five and revisit in December if we get that far. Doesn't have to be a complicated mess. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm more on the side of the argument that's in favor for adding more names at Theta or something, because you can just remove them at the end of the year. Someone who isn't as well versed in the greek alphabet. I do not think we should wait until every storm listed at the moment is exhausted before adding new ones. I can agree to adding more names to the list when one unused name remains. Sdslayer100talk 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
New Articles for New Record Storms
While there could certainly be no more named storms this year, there is a solid chance there will be so I figured it would be worth mentioning this. I know there will be a debate over whether or not each new named storm through the season's last should receive an article simply because they are record setting. Theta should, no doubt, because it will break the record if it forms, but are we considering each name then from Iota on to be notable enough on its own to merit an article if they have nothing else in their favor for making an article on them? I'd lean against this, but I figured it was worth gauging what is thought of this issue before we encounter this issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
If Theta forms and doesn't impact go on to impact any land or become a major meteorological oddity, then it would probably suffice to have the storm's record be mentioned in its summary. It setting the record for most named storms in a single season shouldn't warrant an article on its own. Gumballs678talk 19:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Additional storms beyond Eta will not be notable enough ("hallowed" somehow) simply because they set / extend the "record number of named storms in a single season" to merit an article if they have nothing else in their favor (ie. land impact, loss of property, casualties) for making an article on them. Drdpw (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
But if that's the case, then why did Hurricane Epsilon (2005) get an article when it impacted literally nothing? Was it for the sole reason that it was a late-season storm? If so, will any late-season storms of this year warrant their articles entirely on their own? Sdslayer100talk 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Epsilon 2005 received an article more so because of its intensity and duration, and formation date, all of which set records. That storm in particular has enough information to warrant an article, due to the various other records it set. But, if for example, we get to Theta this year, and it forms in the open ocean and never impacts land and doesn't become an oddity or sets any major records, then it likely won't need an article. Saying "Tropical Storm/Hurricane Theta became the 29th named storm of the season, the most on record, besting the previous record of 28, set in 2005" in the storm's summary would suffice enough. Gumballs678talk 19:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
What was so amazing about all of those facts though? It formed before the end of the official season, which isn't incredible, lasted a week, which isn't incredible, and peaked as a Category 1, which other December storms have also done. Is it just the fact that ALL storms that do this kind of thing will get an article, even if they aren't record-breaking? Sdslayer100talk 20:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It lasted a week in December. Yes, it peaked as a category 1, and yes, others have done so, but no other storm was able to sustain its hurricane intensity as long as Epsilon did. The storm is more of a meteorological oddity which helped to establish its notability that led to the creation of its article. Epsilon also likely received an article to help break up the main season article's length. If 2020 gets a storm like Epsilon, then the discussion on an article can be brought up. An article is not necessary for a storm that simply breaks the named storm record. Gumballs678talk 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
With Eta 2020 is no longer tied with 2005 as the most active season on record, but the introduction to the page still says it is. Ineptune (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you have proof of this? As far as I know the 2020 season is tied with Eta. If you can provide me a source then I'll believe you (I'm not necessarily gonna edit the page because I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ineptune: Can you clarify as to why 2020 is no longer tied with 2005? Eta is the 28th named storm of 2020 and 2005 had 28 named storms, which is what the threshold is being measured on. While "Eta" wasn't used in 2005 because of the unnamed storm found in post-season, there are still 28 named storms. If 2020 reaches a 29th named storm, then yes, it will no be longer tied with 2005 as it will have passed 2005's record. Gumballs678talk 15:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 is tied with 2005 with the formation of Eta, due to the unnamed 2005 Azores storm. If that storm was procedurally named, it would've been assigned the name Tammy, which would've brought the other storms up one name. (Vince becomes Wilma, Wilma becomes Alpha, etc) which would have pushed the last storm up to the name Eta. Due to this, 2020 has beaten 2005 in terms of where the season got to in the naming list, but not in terms of nameable storms. 2020 will beat 2005 upon the formation of a Tropical Storm Theta. Sdslayer100talk 15:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't 2020 still have to produce two more systems to officially tie with 2005? Because from what I remember, 2005 had 31 systems (though the extra two were Tropical depressions) so wouldn't we have to tie that number for it to official count as the most active season? 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 17:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
No, we use tropical storms over depressions. Also, yes, we win on Tropical Storm Theta. However, I don't think subtropical storms were namable back then. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
However, note if tropical depressions 30 and 31 don't develop, Theta would also beat on depressions. To win on hurricanes, we need to get down to Kappa and have them all be hurricanes, and for majors we need Theta and iota. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that is what I thought, just had to make sure, thank you. Subtropical storms were nameable then, they began to be officially named in 2002. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it originally wasn't named because it was thought to be a subtropical depression. Sdslayer100talk 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There was a subtropical depression but it was a separate system at a different time, but the unnamed subtropical storm didn't receive a name because it was not discovered until the NHC post analysis. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 21:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Had they named the 2005 subtropical storm it would have changed history as the destructive category 5 Hurricane Wilma that killed 52 people and did $27.4 billion which was the 2nd costliest hurricane at the time, would have been a Greek letter and they would have had to retire that which would have changed history forever. And we'd know what to do with Hurricane Delta. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It makes no sense not to count Tropical Depressions. They are the lowest level of a tropical cyclone. Saying 2020 and 2005 are tied for most active when 2005 clearly still has more storms is purposely providing inaccurate information. They are tied on named storms, but not overall, 2005 is still the winner.
If you read the lead, it mentions that 2020 is tied with 2005 in terms of named storms. In terms of tropical depressions, 2005 still holds that record with 31. Gumballs678talk 23:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I was confused above, because we are still 2 total systems short of having the max number of systems. I understand though that the NHC has certain guidelines for the systems, and we can't change that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 01:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Tied with 2005 needs changing
Article says that 2020 is tied with 2005 for most active hurricane season and this is incorrect. 2005 had a total of 31 systems form, 2020 is only at 29. --2601:446:400:7F10:41D9:6CA5:92AD:2105 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done The metric by which we measure "most active" by is number of named storms, not depressions.--Jasper Deng(talk) 06:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
That's purposely present false information. Tropical Depressions are tropical systems. 2005 has 31 systems, 2020 is at 29, so there is only a tie in named storms, not overall. Excluding Tropical Depressions makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7F10:2976:5E8C:8F7F:EC9F (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does make sense. Firstly, the definition of, and the quality control of records of, tropical depressions is far less robust than that of named storms. Secondly, the meteorological community at large overwhelmingly ranks seasons this way and we are not empowered to try to change that. Thirdly, per WP:DUE we have to report what reliable sources say, particularly the NHC.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says tied for 'tropical or subtropical storms' and 'storms' is the key word. Depressions aren't storms, ergo 2005 is not ahead in the grand image. Sdslayer100talk 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-analysis?
If the hurricane season ends after November 30, are you sure you would re-analyze one or more storms or hurricanes in the first or second quarter? As they re-analyzed Hurricane Michael of 2018 season in February 2019. --МОДОКАУ 20:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe you're asking would the NHC continue to do their re-analysis on storms if the season extends past November 30? If that is the case, then yes, they would. Re-analysis for the 2020 season will continue through at least the second quarter of 2021, although, there isn't a set "deadline" on when the re-analysis has to be done. Gumballs678talk 20:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Delta image
Discussion is rather stale. ~Destroyeraa🌀 21:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Alright I don't want to violate WP:3RR, and I brought the discussion here so more people can participate:
Images
image 1image 2
Image 1 is of Delta rapidly intensifying and possibly at peak wind intensity on October 6. Image 2 is of Delta intensifying east of Texas with an eye on October 8.
The past discussion is below. ~Destroyeraa🌀 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I prefer image 2. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Past discussion (this is rough)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 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 [Delta's] page. ~Destroyeraa🌀 23:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't get off-topic (like Arthur) please. ~Destroyeraa🌀 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the second image. Sorry if this is a bit late, but the peak intensity of a storm in depicted by its lowest pressure. While Delta reached its highest wind speed in the Caribbean, it had a slightly lower pressure of 953 millibars (as opposed to 954) in the Gulf. Therefore, Image Number 2 displays Delta's peak intensity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMT615 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favor of Delta's second image. I think the first image, which depicts its peak intensity, could be misleading to readers who look at it because the storm at peak intensity didn't show a clear, visible eye (it did have a very small eye at one point during its rapid intensification phase, but the eye never cleared fully to be visible by the human eye), whereas the storm's secondary peak, when it regained major hurricane intensity in the Gulf, shows a clear eye. Gumballs678talk 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to put my opinion here. I support the second image of Delta, as Gumballs678 has said, it is the most representative of the storm, with a clear eye. In addition, the WPTC guidelines never say that we need to use the pressure or wind peaks as the storm's image. Whatever image that is most iconic, as Hurricanehink said, is used (though this differs in some cases, for example Sandy was iconic for it's US landfall, but the image shows an post-tropical cyclone). In addition, the first image is not of the best quality, since it is too colorful with too many blues and greens and sun reflections. ~Destroyeraa🌀 01:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The first pic when Delta was strengthening fast as I believe it was the most notable time. Not buying the idea that the pic to be used is simply for its aesthetics.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not getting the aesthetic argument here. Cyclone structure is subjective and not entirely represented in infrared or visible satellite imagery. I think the first picture should be used because it represents Delta as a category 4 hurricane, which I think would be the most common descriptor of peak intensity, around the end of the record breaking rapid intensification run that it had. Leave the second image for the storm article. – atomic𓅊7732 03:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Atomic7732. If anything, Delta's unusual structure at peak intensity should be emphasized.--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I find it funny a referendum is needed to settle the matter on a profile picture, and when does such a poll close?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicallyDeranged: We close this discussion once there is consensus for one picture. I agree it's a silly discussion, but it's here so MarioProtIV and I won't be blocked for edit warring. ~Destroyeraa🌀 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact there is no straightforward way to determine the pic to put at the top is why a fight has erupted.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
support 2nd image. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Support Delta's 2nd image. Has an eye, and looks more like a tr🌀pical cycl🌀ne than the first img. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 12:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Second image due to the better organization the system shows in this image. Better defined eye, better depicts the storm for what it was. I still think the first image should be somewhere in the article, but you can shuffle it down a bit while moving the second up to the featured spot. (on the season summary and in the infobox that is DarkSide830 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The image that is first isn't that bad, and it represents the storm intensifying rapidly. The second image does have an eye though, and it looks more like a major hurricane. I'm leaning first picture though, however both pictures are fine. 🌀HurricaneJanor (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Image Number 2 though there is a compelling argument for both sides, I honestly think that the second image is the better choice. The first image does show a rapidly intensifying storm, but it is small, and it was just a blob of convection,with little more than that, plus the eye is barely even visible. When the eye tried to come out it went away, and the storm began to have a sprawling and more disorganized look to it all the way up until it made landfall on the Yucatan, though the same did happen before its second landfall. The second image though show a more well-defined storm that has an eye, and bands of convection and whatnot. It better represents the hurricane, and honestly, I think that a lot of people probably wouldn't think that the first image of the storm was a category 4, unless you showed them the recon data and things like the NHC advisories. Honestly the first pic could be of a tropical storm or weak hurricane to the unsuspecting user. The second image though paints a clearer image as to what people think when they see a strong hurricane, plus that was more memorable because it was yet another hurricane that threatened the Gulf Coast, whereas though the intensification was notable, it was only part of Delta's strengthening, and it weakened almost as quickly as it had intensified. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Image Number 2 for sure. Whenever anyone thinks of Hurricane Delta, mostly everyone thinks of Delta striking Louisiana and being the forth of the year to do so. Yes, impacts in the Yucatan were also significant, but an image that 1. more looks like an actual hurricane with an eye and 2. is of the actual "peak" intensity by pressure, it should be the image, not this high-resolution blob excuse for a hurricane image. Hurricaneboy23(page) * (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Image Number 1 It does show the hurricane at its maximum wind speed. A couple arguments for the second image I don't really buy into. Yes, its appearance could be that of a tropical storm or weak hurricane, but I think that actually serves some educational value in showing that an intense hurricane does not necessarily have the classic appearance of a mature tropical cyclone. Second, I think weighing the images based on proximity to the U.S. shifts toward an overly U.S.-centric focus on a storm that had impacts in other countries. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it did have impacts in other countries like Mexico, but in the U.S, it affected an area already severely damaged by Hurricane Laura prior, and it also had a far wider scale of impacts on the United States than it did elsewhere, which is why it would seem to be U.S -centric. the images weren't weighed based on proximity to U.S, but rather on what people were primarily talking about, which was the fact the Delta was going to make landfall right around the same area that was hit only a few months prior from Laura itself. As for the educational purpose, yeah I agree that it is educational for showing that a powerful storm doesn't always look like a mature storm, but any image of a storm that caused damage and had impacts could also serve an educational purpose. Also,(you should) read some comments at the beginning of the vote, they provide details as to why image 2 would be better that image one for the page. I don't know though, I don't feel like getting into an argument over this, I respect your opinion, that is just what popped into my head when I read that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reread the arguments at the beginning of the poll, and I don't think it's misleading to use the image 1, since that's what Delta actually looked like as a cat 4. The only thing that might (might) be misleading would be to imply that an intense hurricane always looks neat. The image of a strong hurricane with a cloud-filled (but still somewhat visible) eye is more representative of this rather unusual storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and I respect what you say, and I see what you mean, I just don't know at this point. I didn't mean to tell you earlier to read them, I meant that as a suggestion, not as a demand, so my apologies at that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Image Number 1. We don't always have to choose the image that looks the prettiest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems more reasons for the second pic are for what they perceive to be a sexy image. And now a second reason is they suppose that no one cares about what happens anywhere in the world outside the US of A, as if the world revolves around this only nation...ugh--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
That is not what I am trying to say at all. I am saying that a major focus of the storm was on the U.S, and that many people remember it because it was on the Gulf Coast where Laura had just made landfall prior. That does not mean that the world revolves around America only. I know there was damage in Mexico, and I hope they recover there, but as HurricaneHink said above, we want to use the most iconic image there is, and the one in the Gulf is remembered by more people than the first image. Please don't be WP:Passive Aggressive, towards me as I can clearly see that that comment was directed at me for what I said on the subject. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I was not sure whose comment I was thinking about when I wrote it. As for the idea of the iconic image, however, I could argue the first image is as most iconic as it can get as it was when Delta was intensifying rapidly not seen since 2005.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies then, it just really seemed directed at me as I was the one who originally said something about America and the storm. I guess that is true about the image being iconic, I honestly just thought that it was worth mentioning, as maybe it would help someone decide, and also as to why I thought the second image should be picked. My apologies 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
We aren't even sure that it is really the fastest intensifying TC on record. The NHC revised its BestTrack to 120 kt, or 140 mph. That's 5 mph below the original. Also, this image is not iconic, things are not iconic for just rapidly intensifying. Many people will remember Delta as the storm that hit Louisiana and the same place that was devestated by Laura, which equals the second image. ~Destroyeraa🌀 23:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay so you're not sure about the rapid intensification rate so that would mean the info is unreliable. Why then has this fact not taken down from the article yet? I see it was described by an expert on Twitter from the ref. As for the part about remembering Delta in the US, prove that. Show me an expert who said everyone is going to remember Delta hitting the US and let us just forget the Yucatan part.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Lowering the peak wind speed (which won't make it onto Wikipedia until the TCR comes out) doesn't change the RI record, since the reported record is on the increase from 30 kt to 115 kt. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: I meant the second image was more iconic, not the first one. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that an expert is needed to know that it is going to remembered. The storm made landfall 12 miles from where Laura hit,which as it is, is memorable enough. No one is forgetting the Yucatan, sure it got damaged by the storm, but The US had a larger range of impacts besides just winds and flooding, and also Mexico got spared worse damage because the storm had weakened to a low end category 2, to even a high end cat 1. when Delta made landfall in America, damaged was worse that what it would've been if not for Laura. This made an already damaged and hurt area even worse compared to what it was already, which makes it memorable, especially those who have had to deal with it firsthand. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Weatherman27: My bad. Sorry. ~Destroyeraa🌀 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Delta appears healthier in the second image, making it, IMO, the more representative of the storm's overall force/power of the two. Additionally, the image itself (#2) is of better quality than the other. Drdpw (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrator comment I am glad to see you all talking, but the edit warring seems to have continued while you talk. I have locked the article for 24 hours. Hopefully by the end of that time you all will have reached some kind of consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I think this discussion should just be closed. Things are getting out of hand, there hasn't been a clear consensus as to what is the better pic, and besides we're all in the WPTC so it sucks seeing everyone argue and edit war over this. My apologies to anyone I may have argued with, and my apologies for starting the argument towards the bottom of the discussion. I did not intent for things to get out of hand more than what they already were. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Weatherman27: The thing about closing this right now is that people will edit-war again after the protection is lifted. I don't want to argue either, though I agree this is getting a bit outta hand. ~Destroyeraa🌀 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah okay I understand, I just looked and saw that you said that at the top of the discussion too. My apologies @Destroyeraa: 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 14:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
image 1 is better per Knowledgekid87; it doesn't have to be pretty, but also a kind of on-topic question: If a C5 hurricane has a pressure of 932 millibars, weakens to a C4, but gets its pressure down to 929 millibars somehow as a C4, would the main image be it as a C5 or as a C4, because if it would be as a C5, then you should definitely use the 1st image. Plus, if you squint, you can see an eye on the 1st image lmao Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hurricanehuron33. Most of the people who look at Wikipedia read it. And, though the first image is of a C4 Delta, image 2 looks more like a tropical cyclone. Wait, I highly recommend everyone (pinging FleurDeOdile for obvious reasons) to read the image section of the under-read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style. It has all the solutions to this problem. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 11:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment No one wants to squint seeing this. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As DarkSide830 said above, couldn't we technically use both images, so that both sides get what they want? We could fit both in at different parts of the article to show different parts of the storms lifetime. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 18:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Weatherman27: I don’t think that will look good on the info box. There is a way to combine the two images, I’m sure, but most people will be plain confused. Also, since Image 2 was the original, if there is no consensus, then Image 2 will automatically be used since it was the original. ~Destroyeraa🌀 17:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh okay, yeah that is true, and it makes sense @Destroyeraa:. I was thinking more along the lines of image two in the info-box, and image one in another part of the article, to show its first peak, something like how I don't know Hurricane Leslie (2018) has different pictures to show different periods of its life. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s a very reasonable proposal, but some people want their image in the info box. We can keep both images in Delta’s article, but people are going to get mad about the season article. ~Destroyeraa🌀 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
True true, I didn't think of that part. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutral on options, slightly in favor of Image 1 - I'm fine with either image, but given our past practices, I think that Image 1 (showing the storm rapidly intensifying) may be a more appropriate option, unless Image 2 captures a more iconic moment of the storm. I personally prefer Image 2, but I think that Image 1 may be more appropriate for the storm, hence my vote. BTW, enough of the edit warring already. This is ridiculous. This is probably the most extensive image war I've seen on TC articles in 2 or 3 years, and it needs to stop. If this continues, the users responsible for most of the warring might end up getting sanctioned. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Slightly in favor of Image 2 I was really close to changing my vote from pic 2 to pic 1, but I've decided to stick with pic 2. More than looking more impressive and being close to its lowest pressure, the storm is better remembered for hitting the U.S., so the 2nd pic makes more sense. Regardless, one image should be in the infobox, and the other should be in the meteorological history. This way, both pics can be seen at the beginning at the article. Now can this discussion be over? I'm tired of this.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 03:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Votes are 8 to 9, including mine. So is this no consensus? Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. Is this the next hottest debate?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see this to be open much longer, I suggest like the above section on TS Arthur we make it an RFC. --170.24.150.111 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Use Image 1 It is at Delta's highest wind speed, as a C4 hurricane. IMO it is more notable than its secondary peak, only a C3. Also disagree those who said #1 is not good due to lack of eye. Please look at it more carefully, there is a pinhole eye in it. Isn't a pinhole eye not notable enough to be in the Infobox? Every storm has it's own specialty. It is not necessary to have the "best" image for every TC. BTW, the pressure at the secondary peak is only a few mbar lower. I don't think this is a persuasive reason to have #2 on the Infobox. --182.239.88.140 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
agreeing with IP user. People with image #2 expect to have a big, showy eye to look sexy, and only sexiness counts.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
As Chicdat said above, you all should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style as this accurately this will solve this entire issue so that maybe we can come to a consensus and close this discussion once-and-for-all. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 00:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Image Number 1 is the closest to the Delta's strongest wind. Image #2 is not even close to the peak (still at Category 2 strength). Some editors arguing about the notability, and I believe that Delta undergoing rapid intensification is more notable than its secondary peak. I see Hurricanehuron's point that the two peaks of Delta (in terms of pressure) only have a tiny difference. IMHO it is not a good point on saying Image #2 has a lower pressure and we should choose it to be the Infobox image. --116.48.244.146 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak support on image 2. There is no rules or guidelines said image closest to the peak must be used in the Infobox. Infobox image should be the most iconic one, and image 2 obviously did that in terms of the eye. --137.189.204.43 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment WOW that was a hot debate, probably the hottest in the history of WPTC. I appreciate the outputs, but unfortunately it is very difficult (almost impossible) to attain a consensus in a short time. --219.78.191.69 (talk) 14:22, 30 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.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (Wikipedia vs CSU)
Hi! I am conflicted on what the actual ACE value for the 2020 Atlantic season is. Wikipedia currently (as of 21:04 UTC) has it at 149, but CSU has it at 153.8. Is there a math discrepancy that caused the difference? INeedSupport😷 21:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
CSU uses the BestTrack data, while WP uses the advisory data. I am personally against WP calculating ACE by itself, and there is a current discussion about that. ~Destroyeraa🌀 21:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I commented. Just saying that matters, as the requirements for ACE is 10 hurricanes(we have 12), 5 major hurricanes(we have 5)and a 153 ACE, per thesediscussions. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge TS Arthur?
This was also stale. Re-open in a few weeks or months on Arthurs talk page. ~Destroyeraa🌀 21:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
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 am making this section in response to the suggestion above. I encourage editors to read my objections before making a quick judgement by looks or current article size alone.
The entire "Meteorological history" section of the article uses a single primary source (WP:PRIMARY). The formation and events surrounding any given tropical system are considered to be routine unless something is unusual in the way they form or develop.
Damage was limited in the Caribbean according to the sources used.
"Although Arthur never directly impacted Florida as a tropical system, the precursor system to Arthur caused heavy rainfall and gusty winds in the Florida Keys and South Florida throughout May 13-14. Over 4 in (101.6 mm) of rain fell in many sections of the Middle Keys and a peak rainfall total of 5.35 in (135.8 mm) fell in Marathon on May 14, where it was the tenth highest rainfall amount for the city on record and second most for May." This is a bit of a stretch... if the sources are not directly blaming the rainfall on Arthur then it could be seen as WP:SYNTH.
The rest of the impacts section is full of WP:ROUTINE news reports about rainfall during a tropical system. When tropical systems hit, there is going to be rainfall and flooding. Nothing unusual or WP:LASTING about that unless it is noted otherwise.
So in conclusion... I do not think Arthur needs an article. The information can be condensed into a summary that does not go into run of the mill detailed information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment I tried to merge it less than a month ago, and in May this was nominated for merging. Both discussions ended with speedy close and keep. ~Destroyeraa🌀 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to wait until the air is cleared to propose things. I know editors are eager to make articles to help inform readers, but we also have policies in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The MH section uses the National Hurricane Center as its only source. The impact section can be condensed to only include the most relevent information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, all TC articles use the NHC as the only source. ~Destroyeraa🌀 18:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You still have not said how the formation of Arthur was not routine? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying that something that isn't routine needs an article (for example Pablo 2019). ~Destroyeraa🌀 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I meant to say this before but we are going into WP:OSE. Does the following give a good enough summary of the MH section:
"On May 14, The NHC began monitoring an area of disturbed weather which was expected to form just north of Cuba in a couple of days. The interaction of an upper-level trough and a stalled front over the Florida Straits led to the formation of a low-pressure area in that region on May 15. The system moved north-northeast and developed into a tropical depression east of Florida around 18:00 UTC on May 16, before an Air Force reconnaissance aircraft found that it had become Tropical Storm Arthur six hours later. Arthur weaved along the Gulf Stream and changed little in intensity as it encountered increasing wind shear. After passing east of North Carolina, the system reached peak winds of 60 mph (95 km/h) as deep convection partially covered the center. Shortly after, Arthur interacted with another front and became an extratropical cyclone by 12:00 UTC on May 20. The low turned southeast before dissipating near Bermuda a day later."
Merge-didn't make landfall, minimal damage, WP: PRIMARY, Vicky doesn't have an article, etc. etc. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This whole discussion just sounds wishy-washy, we're arguing that Arthur shouldn't have an article because of improper usage of a source, which I have yet to see a "policy" on that, as well as having intricate detail, but most of the storms this system do both of those things. Should we merge all of them? There's not really an argument here. Furthermore, a storm doesn't need to make landfall or cause excessive damage to have an article. Are we maybe cutting the rope a little short by giving Arthur an article? Sure, but I have yet to see ample evidence or reasoning as to why Arthur shouldn't have an article. The storm summary is already bulky enough as is, why do we need to add more to it for a storm that brought relative, albeit small, impacts to the United States? Hurricane Gert (2017) has an article and it brought even less impacts to the United States. Is there an actual guideline on how we decide which storms get articles and which don't, and if there is, where I can find it? Gumballs678talk 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about WP policies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sadly not @Gumballs678: but you can make one with the help of our admins. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
So then what is the point of this discussion if there's inconsistencies on how we decide which storms get articles? Gumballs678talk 20:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:OSE is not a good argument to use. I am talking about this article.... I gave plenty of reasons why Arthur shouldn't have an article with WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE rationales. You are not dismissing my arguments but are saying "what about x...?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That's my point though, you're arguing that because Arthur isn't notable, it shouldn't have an article, but I brought up Gert because it the storm is also not notable, but has an article. We can't have a discussion about merging a storm because it isn't notable while still having another storm that fits the same criterion keep its article. It's inconsistent. Furthermore, I'm not sure how routine knowledge applies to Arthur, you're argument there is because its a tropical cyclone, its going to bring rain and flooding, but in every tropical cyclone article, there is at least mention of the rain and flooding impacts the storm brings. That is also inconsistent. This is why I still believe this discussion is unnecessary because the rationales and arguments being used are not being used consistently. We can't just talk about Arthur, even though this about Arthur, because then inconsistencies arise. Gumballs678talk 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
We have WP:N for a reason, so notability does indeed count when deciding to make an article. There is nothing at Wikipedia:Consistency that says article x gets to stay because article y exists. In fact most of the arguments point to things you should avoid in deletion discussions. I am fine with articles for storms as long as they are notable enough for inclusion, its how it is everywhere on Wikipedia from shootings to storms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of the point of WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't it? If you want to be consistent, perhaps a merge discussion for Gert is warranted as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Arthur's lack of notability isn't the issue, I agree that the storm isn't notable. Consistency needs to be discussed here, because the project relies and thrives on consistency across the board. We can't agree to merge one storm because it doesn't meet the "requirements" of an article, when we're ignoring other storms that also don't meet those same standards. If it comes down to Arthur's article being deleted and merged based on its lack of notability, then we need to go back and at least discuss the same standard for other storms that have articles that aren't notable, like @TornadoLGS: mentioned above. Gumballs678talk 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Im sorry but like it or not WP:N is a Wikipedia guideline that states: "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". If you want to propose a section on article Wikipedia:Consistency when I suggest the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Consistency is also a Wikipedia guideline. But, you missed the point of both mine and TornadoLGS's post, we're not arguing that Arthur isn't notable. We're arguing that consistency needs to take precedence in the future if it is decided that Arthur's article should be merged. Gumballs678talk 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Consistency is not a Wikipedia guideline and does not go before the notability of an article. If Arthur is merged then this discussion can be used as a baseline based on policy arguments rather than referring to WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
stop arguing. I suggest we merge Gert as well. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss something off topic and want to focus on Arthur as I have cited specific examples. We can always have further discussions down the line regarding storms as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The notability guideline only applies to whether we include the storms in the first place in a season article, and we generally include any storm recognized by an official agency (which establishes the notability). I recommend waiting until after the season is done. Considering the length of the season article, I think we should keep Arthur's article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as I don't think we should be merging storms that had impact into an already 300k season article. NoahTalk 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I recommended we merge Gert. Check out this discussion. Signing off. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
No. This discussion on this talk page is not about merging Hurricane x, y, and z. It’s about merging Arthur. Let’s keep with the proper merge discussion, and not get off topic. ~Destroyeraa🌀 22:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
We can discuss merging Gert on that storm's page. Gert was only brought up as an example within my argument. Gumballs678talk 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
ok but i did make the proposal. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic comment with respect to the arguments about the season article being >300 kB: FWIW I think most of the individual sections are too long and likely need to be trimmed when the TCRs are released. E.g. Cristobal and Hanna having 2 long paragraphs of MH each doesn't seem right when they have their own articles. Excessive details about wind/pressure going up and down every few hours, like in Omar's and Rene's sections, should also be condensed. This isn't likely to drop the readable prose below 60 kB, however (currently it's 76 kB), which means a lower-than-normal standard for splitting should be considered. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Strong keep The MH has FIFTEEN REFS. And, as a reminder, if we merge Arthur, then we will bloat the season article above 76 kb, perhaps to 80kb. See WP:Article size. Pages for Dolly, Edouard, Gonzalo, etc. don't exist because of no or minimal impact. But minimal impact is like $25 thousand in damage. Arthur's figure is $112 thousand. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 10:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The MH has 15 references all supported by a single primary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability for a stand alone article. As I pointed out above the information is nicely put into a summary on the main page without bloating things with un-needed details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment-Arthur did $112,000. However, there was nothing else notable. Just a week later, Tropical Storm Bertha was a bigger threat. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This is why both have an article. ~Destroyeraa🌀 12:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
k e e p because merging it with the season would just bloat it up more; its already, like, the length of the f e a t u r e d article Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007), and then the 15 refs, so that adds up to a keep. (btw there are 4 keeps, and 1 merge as of now) Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
yeah, we don’t need some of the info. I suggest we trim the article before continuing. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
MergeNo landfall, minimal damage., I always thought it was iffy to have an article for such an inconsequential storm. The calls to keep outnumbering the calls to merge is irrelevant, per WP:NOTDEM. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Lean keep, comment The article seems to be long enough and have enough unique information, though the fact that this debate was already had on Arthur's page itself and it only seemed to survive by the skin of its teeth suggests that it shouldn't have even survived to this point. My vote is keep, but I think we should honor the votes cast in that discussion too when factoring in the votes cast here. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment —3 for merge, 6 for keep. Also, Destroyeraa i know Bertha has an article-I'm saying it was more notable then Arthur as it claimed a life and did $133,000-which is $21,000 more then Arthur. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Bertha also has an article because it made landfall, which makes Bertha irrelevant to this discussion. I'm personally for keeping the article, because the article contains enough information to warrant keeping. But, merging the article would only swell the main page more than it already is. Gumballs678talk 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Again - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, Gumballs678, you just said above that you support merging this article. ~Destroyeraa🌀 19:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I said I would agree to merge the article, if its decided that it should be merged based on the storm's lack of notability, but that does not appear to be the case, as those who are in favor of merging it, are more so for the storm not making landfall and having minimal impacts. If me "changing" my vote throws a wrench in things, then we don't have to use it. Gumballs678talk 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Arthur lacks notability because its impact was minimal. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
We should really have this on the Tropical Storm Arthur talk page. I added a quicklink. This direly needs subsections, as well.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
There already was a discussion about merging Arthur on its talk page and it was voted to stay. It seems rather counterintuitive to do it twice Gumballs678talk 21:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually the discussion was closed for being "stale" with most of the opinions in favor of a merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Right. It's counterintuitive to bring it up on the storm's talk page again, because of the first discussion and its end result. What should happen, since it's already happening, is continue the discussion here, and then incorporate any and all arguments from that first discussion into this one. Gumballs678talk 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment I was originally going to say this at 11:25 UTC or 7:25 AM for me but I had to go to school. Now that I'm home and it's 2:19 PM, I want to say that yes, it may bloat the article, but we can trim other stuff. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To expand a little, have of Arthur is literally just about preporations and can be merged. This is literally why Gonzalo doesn't have an article. I also say this is organized into Merge, Keep and then comments are left scattered, to give it more organization. The last one had support, but it was
Keep - The main season article is already long enough, and there is enough details in the storm article to keep it. Nova Crystallis(Talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment we don’t need all of that information. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Slight incline to merge...I've read the article in full and much of the events associated with Arthur are quite typical for many weather systems, even for non-tropical lows. However, I don't believe those non-tropical systems get an Wikipedia article. My location gets far worse weather than Arthur yet Wikipedia has no article about them.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
You're definitely right about that. Some non-tropical systems do get pages, but they are primarily European Windstorms or Nor'easters, with little more than that, and they bring impacts and weather conditions many times over worse than Arthur. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep because there's enough content in the Arthur article as is for its existence. YEPacificHurricane 22:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
yet again- keep because it has enough content to be an article. Why does this continue to pop up? legit. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
because some of the content, mainly the impact section, describes what is to be expected for hundreds of similar weather events around the world year in year out so it is not very notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Would you judge a book by its cover or would you actually take the time and look through it to decide? if we were going by argument strength I see almost nobody refuting my points made about the article. DarkSide830 is the only one who suggested the article has "unique information" without going into detail on how the information is unique. Merging an article does not require you to merge the entire article.... if the information can be condensed and merged then it can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment/info for the official discussion. The Current Events WikiProject has interest in this discussion/Rfc. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as the original article Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) is well sourced. Also the storm had a very small notable cause/effect happen. SpaceX delayed a launch due to the hurricane. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment literally on the page for WikiProject Tropical Cyclones:
"Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season."
a r t h u r ' s a r t i c l e i s n ' t a s t u b Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment. CLOSE THIS. Arthur's article will never be merged. NEVER. Just close this. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why the RFC should be closed when no clear consensus has emerged. Keep in mind they generally run for 30 days or so such that other users (preferably not involved with the subject matter) can comment. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:24, 24 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.
I would say that it is trivial as we have had past seasons that have had a later start than 2020, not to mention I haven't seen any sources stating that there is any sort of effect from late development of the stronger systems. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 18:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Weatherman27: No, I mean we had tropical storms very early, but hurricanes and major hurricanes really didn't spring up until later. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have clarified, but I meant that we have had seasons in the past that have had hurricanes form later in the season than 2020's first hurricane did. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I've wondered about the rarity of the first hurricane taking so many storms to develop, and think that would be a worthwhile note if there was a source backing it up, but I wouldn't push too hard in favor of it if someone thought it to be too trivial to add. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Too-Long Storm Summaries
Is it noticeable to anyone else how long some the storm summaries are in this article? Like Tropical Storms Cristobal and Dolly, the latter of which barely lasted for 2-3 days, have very long summary articles that I feel are too in-depth. Any way we can fix that? It may be a big project but I feel the release of the TCRs may help.JoeMT615 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@JoeMT615: Drdpw and I have been condensing the systems section of the season article. Most of it will probably get cut down once the season ends. ~Destroyeraa🌀 02:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I personally think that we shouldn’t condense storms that don’t have articles because if they do we can find the info elsewhere but not if we condense things like Gonzalo. Also, the reader will not think to check the page history. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Western atlantic central. Plus, until early October, JoeMT615 was removing huge swaths of sourced, notable information, with redundant edit summaries that failed to explain why the edit was being made. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 12:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa, Drpdw, JoeMT615, and Chicdat: first, we cut down on information on storms that have articles. leave storms like Gonzalo and Vicky alone until everything else is trimmed. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean we get ourselves a bit too caught up in length and the neatness of viewing, and while these things should be preserved none of that matters if the information we are providing is lacking. I'd worry initially about having important infmroation, then getting rid of what is later deemed to be not as important as once thought. That's kinda the same way I feel about holding off on deleting drafts but also not rushing into publishing articles. Keep that delicate balance to some degree. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
We need to balance enough information and too much. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The Eta death toll is 181? Do you want us to update it now? Or did we already update it? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
1886 - 6 or 7?
In the OP it says that this year tied 1886 and 1995 for the most hurricane landfalls on record in the U.S. on one season, but looking at the article on 1886, it says that there were 7 hurricane landfalls in the U.S. that year, not 6. Is there a debate over hurricane 8's track parallel to the TX/Mexico border as a U.S. landfalling hurricane that year or no? It currently states in the article that that storm made a landfall in Texas between Brownsville and Corpus Christi. 98.222.111.10 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Storm 8 of 1886 was listed as a U.S. hurricane because it brought hurricane-force winds to Texas, but actually made landfall just south of the TX/Mexico border. So, it is a tie. NVM. 98.222.111.10 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Grammar correction. Lol. But it was 1985. 1995 had 2 I think. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the first time two storms have been active in November since 2001.[4]74.73.230.232 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done Interesting, but not a proper edit request – must be of the form "please change X to Y". Drdpw (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done Purely trivial. ~Destroyeraa🌀 13:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s purely trivial. I think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Just my $0.02. I would not implement it without consensus. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Page protection
@Cyclonebiskit: Is page protection until 2021 really necessary? I think pending changed protection is better suited, since all editors can edit, while IP edits are still in check. ~Destroyeraa🌀 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: Procedure IMO is that I talk with the protecting admin on the protected page. ~Destroyeraa🌀 00:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: standard procedure, or at least how I've seen it, is to gradually increase the duration of protection if vandalism resumes soon after protection is dropped. Given that a storm is threatening the US at present, and history has it that vandalism spikes during land threats, I see no reason to drop protection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Now that Theta formed, and 2020 is now the most active season, vandalism will probably increase when protection is dropped. Thanks. ~Destroyeraa🌀 13:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Eta deaths
Just wondering why etas deaths have dropped one hundered? Looks like it’s the landslide one, was it just estimates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
No they are confirmed, rose it again Nickrotat (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The most recent sources for Guatemala state 42 deaths and 100+ missing, the earlier sources incorrectly lumped the missing into deaths. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done It very much is a count noun, especially as used in media coverage of this topic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Stale