Talk:2021 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (2)

i was gonna make some changes to hurricane sam as it weakened into a high end category 3 hurricane but i can't for some reason OrzonYT (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

In the section ,,Season effects‘‘ the ,,Dates active‘‘ for Bill should be June 14 - 15, since the TCR says that Salamon650 (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done HurricaneEdgar 10:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

Sam is now a 130mph hurricane and i want to change from 140mph to 130mph Hurricane4235 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done HurricaneEdgar 09:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2021 (3)

I would like to add an image of a satellite picture of five tropical cyclones in the "season summary" location. I have not uploaded the image yet but am planning to. Thanks. 🌀AwesomeHurricaneBoss🌀 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC) 🌀AwesomeHurricaneBoss🌀 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing this request until an image is provided. Please make sure the image has a compatible license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (3)

Edit Sam- maximum sustained winds 125 mph (C3)- min pressure- 966 TornadoChaserStorm (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Sam only made it to 150MPH, not 155 173.235.252.114 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please check the conversation above, esp. regarding NHC's statement from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2021/al18/al182021.discus.018.shtml?. If you still think it shouldn't be shown as 155mph, please add your opinion on the discussion. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — LauritzT (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sam peak intensity

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

---

A NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft investigating Sam this afternoon and evening found that the major hurricane likely peaked in intensity at around 135 kt with a central pressure of about 929 mb between 1900-2200 UTC when the eye contracted down to about 7 nmi in diameter.

• I oppose using this as the peak because the NHC said likely, which means they are not certain. We should take this with a grain of salt and maintain the 100% confirmed 130 knot peak until the TCR clarifies this. There are no best track points for this intensity and no advisory explicitly had it either. Noah^Talk 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • See Andres 2015. Clearly precedent for this. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just because people did it then doesn't make it right now. Noah^Talk 03:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• NEUTRAL on this pending further discussion. ~ AC5230 talk 03:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT per Mario and precedent. Could however include that this is pending reevaluation however is deemed likely by RSMC. ~ AC5230 talk 03:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose For reasons stated by Noah, if the NHC wanted this to be the actual peak used they would have put it in the best track, as they did with an 05Z point on Nicholas' BT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryTheComrade (talk • contribs)

• • @Hurricane Noah and AveryTheComrade: Now they have (see [1]):

     AL, 18, 2021092618,   , BEST,   0, 140N,  503W, 135,  929, HU,  34, NEQ,   80,   80,   60,   70, 1013,  120,  10, 160,   0,   L,   0,    ,   0,   0,        SAM, D, 12, NEQ,  150,   90,   90,  120, genesis-num, 038,

    . Your objections are therefore no longer valid—Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Say “The NHC estimated peak winds of 155 mph, pending a post-season analysis.” That is what the “likely” means, that it is their best estimate, and we will find out if they stand by that in a few months. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support – (Edit conflict): I'm more in support of this than against it, because 1) the NHC didn't have recon in the storm at the time of the storm's peak intensity (by hours) and they admitted that it was stronger in between flights, 2) the NHC said that it was "likely" - while not definitive, we can always change the peak values once the TCR comes out, and 3) this is basically the word of the NHC, so it's as reliable as we can get regarding the authority of the sources. Also, as Jasper Deng said off-wiki, we did something similar for Hurricane Andres (2015). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In the event that there is no consensus to use the estimated values in the infobox, I feel that we are obligated to mention them in the storm's MH (in the season article, and in any article it gets), per Hurricanehink's proposal. Completely ignoring them would be a violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:COVERAGE. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support using this as the peak. It's unusual, but they made it clear the intensity was prior to the advisory and went out of their way to give a value. They could have just said "Sam likely peaked in intensity earlier in the day" and not give values. All intensities are approximate so focusing on "likely" as a reason to not use it doesn't really make sense. It's the same for every operational intensity, it's subject to change in post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm kind of on the fence about this. Mainly because "likely" is not certain. In cases of uncertainty like this, I would prefer to lowball it since we can at least be sure it attained 130 kt, even if we're less sure it reached 135. Though on the matter of BT, would it not show up, since that dataset uses synoptic points at 18:00 and 00:00 while this apparent peak was between 19:00 and 22:00? In that case, the peak would be comparable to what happened with Lorenzo. If we keep the peak at 130, there should be a note mentioning the possibility of 135. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Cyclonebiskit. Also, "100% confirmed 130 knot peak" does not make sense, because the statements "the peak intensity of Sam was 130 kt" and "the peak intensity of Sam was 135 kt" are mutually exclusive and the 135 kt sentence thus asserts that a 130-knot peak is not confirmed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Likely is not that certain, It could intensify more. So lets wait until Sam dissipates. Hurricane4235 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hurricane4235: It will not be any more or less certain once the storm dissipates unless a more definitive peak intensity occurs in coming days.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jasper Deng: Lets see if a more definitive peak comes. Hurricane4235 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Hurricane4235: But that's what we always do with active storms. The maximum intensity observed thus far is what we put for the storm's maximum intensity in this article and here it's unequivocally the 135-knot figure mentioned in the discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support for putting 155 mph as the peak intensity. do agree this is a pretty "LAME" conflict. NHC is a reliable source, they claimed Sam was 155 mph at peak, although not fitting into the 6 hour period (analogous to something like Hurricane Lorenzo (2019) 5 mph stronger than Ida and both the same pressure, thus, Sam shall be the strongest for now unless post-analysis states otherwise. It would be more of a strong case if there was an asynoptic point added to the best track around 20z, although thats yet to happen, but the reference from the National Hurricane Center, an obviously reliable source which goes higher priority than ATCF, I think is already strong enough of a case for now. Not sure why it has to be so complicated. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I am in support of the 155/929 peak for Sam as the NHC still lists this intensity as Sam’s peak, even if there is a degree of uncertainty. Until the NHC revises their peak estimate either in post-season analysis or in a future forecast discussion, this peak intensity should stand. If this peak is ultimately not listed, then there should at least be a note including this estimated intensity as Sam’s likely peak. The shyguy (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• • @The shyguy: The note including this estimated intensity as Sam’s likely peak seems already present in Sam's description. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support, although this one seems to have less confidence than Ida's peak minimum pressure of 929mb (which is also from discussion), the information stated in the discussion isn't broad, it shows specific values of wind & pressure, which makes me convinced that it is trustable value to cite, as either way(current est. or discussion-stated values), TCR will tell about the final decision. Any slight change in wording can make the situation look more certain or not - like Ida's discussion said 'appears to' which isn't very certain context either. But still, the best track for now (https://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/docs/tracks/2021/bal182021.dat) has 130kt 937mb point at 18z unlike Ida (https://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/docs/tracks/2021/bal092021.dat) which has 929mb in it - but still, this can't be used as a source for any claims, just a note here. Also, in discussion 18 where they said likely peaked 135kt 929mb, they also said 'which has resulted in the central pressure increasing by at least 14 mb in only a few hours' which supports that these aren't just broad values. But since this is yet an uncertain guess about NHC's decision, I remain as weak support for now. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is enough support from the NHC to keep the synoptic intensity estimate. We did a similar thing with Ida when a discussion listed the peak intensity between advisories. Supportstorm (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Changing to Support because it's now indicated on BT. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Not that it is relevant anymore, but yes changing to Support as it is on the BT AveryTheComrade (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

@Modokai: It is pretty WP:LAME to be edit warring over the "strongest storm" parameter; assuming the above discussion favors using the 135 kt and 929 mb peak intensity, the established convention with storms tied in pressure here (929 mb) is to choose the one(s) with the highest winds, in which case Sam is used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC) So is Ida the strongest storm or Sam?? Hurricane4235 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane4235: Sam, by NHC's current opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Recon was not there when during Sam's peak so it is possible it might have been stronger than Ida as the NHC did mention that in the discussion, so I guess we'll just have to wait until the tropical cyclone report comes out. Hurricane 8021 (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane4235: For now it is Sam by the NHC'S estimate. Hurricane 8021 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is Sam but idk why many ppl are saying that Ida is the strongest storm of the season. Hurricane4235 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly its similar to Patrica(2015). NHC didn't have observations at the time of its peak and they noted it could have had a lower pressure then typhoon Tip. Sam is similar where it peaked between flights and then had a eyewall replacement cycle. Until post-season or a stronger storm by wind or pressure forms Sam officially is the strongest storm of the year HavocPlayz (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane4235: I think it's pretty clear why people keep putting it back to Ida. The intensities given in the forecast advisories give a peak of 130 kt and 938 mb. The 135 kt and 929 mbar (in which case I guess wind is the tiebreaker) is only mentioned in the discussion. Since this sort of thing is cause for confusion, perhaps we should include a note like this next to the intensity in the infobox: . Also, to the newer editors in this thread, if you are replying to a previous comment, please indent your comment with the appropriate number of :'s to make the thread easier to read. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be concluded. The best track now explicitly shows a peak of 135kt/929 mb at 18z on September 16. Sourced from: [2]

(AL, 18, 2021092618, , BEST, 0, 140N, 503W, 135, 929, HU, 34, NEQ, 80, 80, 60, 70, 1013, 120, 10, 160, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SAM, D, 12, NEQ, 150, 90, 90, 120, genesis-num, 038,) Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

it seen Hurricane Sam peak at 135/929, per NHC Best track i thick this is now clearly

AL, 18, 2021092618,   , BEST,   0, 140N,  503W, 135,  929, HU,  34, NEQ,   80,   80,   60,   70, 1013,  120,  10, 160,   0,   L,   0,    ,   0,   0,        SAM, D, 12, NEQ,  150,   90,   90,  120, genesis-num, 038, 
AL, 18, 2021092618,   , BEST,   0, 140N,  503W, 135,  929, HU,  50, NEQ,   40,   30,   25,   30, 1013,  120,  10, 160,   0,   L,   0,    ,   0,   0,        SAM, D, 12, NEQ,  150,   90,   90,  120, genesis-num, 038,  

HurricaneEdgar 01:25, 28 September 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (4)

Can I edit Tropical Storm Peter? Something is wrong with Peter, at the very end. Explanation: Peter has a 50/50 chance to redevelop, and so far someone has edited that it has a chance to redevelop, but it is too early to know. Text evidence: On September 25, the NHC began monitoring an area of disorganized showers and thunderstorms south of Bermuda associated with the remnants of Peter for potential development. (From wikipedia, Tropical Storm Peter 2021 Atlantic Hurricane Season) And editing Sam and possible Victor and Wanda. Will be back tomorrow.

 Done On the matter of Peter. @Kangsea0: Edit requests are not requests for permission to edit, however. They are requests for specific edits to be made if you do not have the rights given the protection level. They should usually be given in the format of "Add/remove X" or "Change A to B." TornadoLGS (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In a day or two we will be able to add a sentence stating something to the effect that A) remnants had deteriorated; or, B) the remnants reorganized, becoming Tropical Depression Peter. Until then, the text quoted is all that really needs to be stated. Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: The remnants of Peter reforming into a possible tropical depression is decreasing, so maybe we might edit after the storm fully dissipates, or if it forms, (a small window is still open for forming) then we can edit after the storm forms. It is likely that the remnants of Peter will dissipate, as same as Tropical Storm Odette. (2021) Kangsea0 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that increased wind shear and cooler ocean temperatures will soon put an end to any chance for development. Drdpw (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Tropical depression Twenty

The current tropical depression cannot be called twenty, because cyclone Teresa was not a tropical cyclone, but a subtropical one. André L P Souza (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@André L P Souza: Tropical and subtropical cyclones are given numbers in the same sequence. Teresa was 19L, regardless of whether it was tropical or subtropical. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

TornadoLGS thanks for the report. Unfortunately, the page is blocked and I won't be able to update anything here or copy it to Lusophone Wikipedia. André L P Souza (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Unfortunately, I am unable to copy the contents here to update the Lusophone Wikipedia. Because of this, I won't be able to add Depression 20 content or update Sam's information. What happened to them taking this extreme measure? André L P Souza (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@André L P Souza: There was an edit war involving some autoconfirmed editors, prompting extended confirmed protection, though I think the duration may have been a bit excessive. You can still get the necessary details for the Portuguese page by clicking "View Source." TornadoLGS (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

TornadoLGS thanks for helping me. It's just that I'm most familiar with the advanced version and the Wikipedia application. On the Portuguese page, just Dbastro and I updated it. André L P Souza (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

In this image caption:

Final Advisory forecast showing Icelnand impact

Please change "Icelnand" to "Iceland". Thank you. 64.203.186.93 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) 64.203.186.93 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by someone else. Chlod (say hi!) 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Auxiliary List

I have a question should we add the Auxiliary list since we are 2 names away from it or is it too soon still? Wikihelp7586 (Talk) 23:56, 24 September 2021

I think we should do something like we did last year and add maybe the first six names from the list. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

→ Link to last year's discussion: Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1#Greek letter names in Storm names section

Perhaps add a portion of the list but keep the unused names hidden until active. Drdpw (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and Drdpw I agree with you guys we should add some of the names on there like last year. Wikihelp7586 (Talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021

Yes we should add it and after the end of the season we can remove all the unused names. Hurricane4235 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In Pacific typhoon articles, the first ten names of the auxiliary list are shown year-round. Perhaps we should do the same? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

With only two names left on the original list, we should follow the procedure we did last year and add the list, but keep all but a few names hidden until more form. For example, we could show the first six and if the list extends past say that 3rd or 4th name in the aux list, then reveal another set. Gumballs678 talk 21:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

2 is very close to running of standard names so I think we should add auxiliary list names HurricaneResearch (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Going by last year's practice, this is what should be added:

Auxiliary list
Adria (unused) Braylen (unused)	Caridad (unused) Deshawn (unused)	Emery (unused) Foster (unused)

If there are no objections, and if no one beats me to it, this is what I will add to the article (I will probably hold off until tomorrow, before implementing). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thx for presenting that here and making us sure that there will actually be a auxiliary list HurricaneResearch (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If we use half of the auxiliary names, the last few auxiliary will be published. HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: That is incorrect. If we get to the 6th auxiliary name shown we will post the next 3 auxiliary names to the page (keeping the 3-column format). Drdpw (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Off topic comments
Compared to the standard names, The auxiliary names are strange and are not common HurricaneResearch (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Especially Caridad on the first 6 names of the list Kangsea0 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The possibility of a 6th Auxillary name being used is unlikely but is also likely since we have a month or more until the season end but their a chance a off season Storm happen. HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Copied

PlanetsForLife 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Mindy article

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.

---

Why hasn’t there been an article on tropical storm Mindy yet? Though Mindy was short lived, It still had some effects on land and is notable enough that it should have it’s own article. IBlazeCat (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Mindy did hit land (Florida) but I would consider notable if it was hurricane strength. HurricaneResearch (talk ) 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Mindy doesn't need an article as it was a tropical storm. If it was a hurricane then an article could have been made. Hurricane4235 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Plenty of tropical storms have articles though. Considering the size of this page, if someone can write a reasonably sized article I’d be fine with a Mindy page. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 09:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue with an article for Mindy is there isn't enough prose to put into an article. It rapidly organized, made landfall, and then rapidly dissipated just as fast. Impacts were minimal. Gumballs678 talk 11:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Gumballs. Mindy doesn't need an article. Hurricane4235 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Mindy doesn't need an article, its impacts were weak and not enough to publish one. It was short-lived as well; and maximum sustained winds were only at 45 mph. Kangsea0 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Weak Support/Question See, I would support this stance; the problem is that there was precedent before for previous short-lived tropical storms that caused some light damage in the United States (e.g. Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) and Tropical Storm Danny (2021)). If Danny was short-lived (and caused minimal damage) was enough to warrant an article, why not Mindy? Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Kaiser Jaguar

Good question. Compared to Danny this year, I would support this idea, however, the data on the 2021 Atlantic Hurricane Season shows unknown. On the other hand, Mindy was quick, and could've caused the same amount of damage compared to Danny, which was minimal. Danny, tracked near Atlanta, Georgia and produced heavy rain. Mindy, hit Tallahassee, Florida and Jacksonville, Florida. But if there is enough evidence for this and more explanation, a article of Mindy could be created. Kangsea0 (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... All of you are giving good points.. My strong oppose is being changed to Weak Oppose as a Mindy article would be very small. Hurricane4235 (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is unnecessary, if someone wants there to be a Mindy article, create a draft and find as much info as you can; if the prose looks long and well-written enough to you in the end then publish it. And @Hurricane4235:, see Tropical Storm Allison and Tropical Storm Imelda if you think tropical storms aren't as notable as hurricanes. JayTee🕊️ 12:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh... But both of them were costly enough to have its own article. Was Mindy any close?? Thats why I don't want a Mindy article. But you can create a draft. Hurricane4235 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It boils down to – was Mindy a noteworthy storm in terms of duration, track, intensity, damage, and/or fatalities? In my estimation the answer is no. As I read in a news article I read out of Jacksonville, Mindy was no worse than the average summer thunderstorm. Drdpw (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane4235:, I agree with @Drdpw and you on this; my point is that literally any storm (even if not a hurricane) can have a draft created for it, so if someone wanted a Mindy article they should be the ones to make it and do the research. However, not all storms are notable, so Mindy might not even form a long enough prose length to warrant one. JayTee🕊️ 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the best course of action will probably be to just wait until the TCR report, and all damage estimates and everything else is finalized. I think it is just honestly the only true thing we can do here, once we have the report we can truly determine whether or not an article will be warranted. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:35, 30 September 2021 (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.

Which image of Sam we should use

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.

---

Image 1	Image 2	Image 3
		File:Sam 2021-06-25 0625Z (cropped).png

I notice there was a slight editing war with Hurricane Sam's peak image I want to start this discussion so everyone would agree on one image, Personally I like Image 2 and I won't mind if we use Image 1 either but Image 3 is meh. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Surface analysis Times were simpler when we didn't have to argue over this shit. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nova Crystallis Honestly I think one person focus on one storm for an example Person One uploads Hurricane One's peak images, and Person Two uploads Hurricane Two's peak images, and Person Three uploads Hurricane Three's images and so on and so forth, so we don't have to start discussions over peak images, because I do agree with you, and also I see multiple people trying to use their particular image on the Wikipedia page. I upload tropical cyclone images and I don't mind if anybody uses or don't use my images other people should think the same we would have less editing wars over them, I understand your frustration man. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Nova Crystallis and Image 2. Chlod (say hi!) 17:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Are we doing this again? The images are pretty similar, and all are about two hours off from the 1800z peak. But I guess I lean in favor of Image 2 since it's more zoomed in on the storm than Image 1 and higher-resolution than Image 3. Because on the resolution, I would take Image 1 over Image 3, especially if we crop it a bit. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image 2 since it's sharp and more zoomed in on the storm. Drdpw (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Ok Image 2 it is, can someone close this discussion please I don't know how to do it. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihelp7586: The discussion is still going at only a handful of people have !voted. A closure would be premature at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Ok sorry. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Image 1. Higher res, eye is more pronounced, and its closer to recon peak. Not much more to it. The second image is just oversaturated for the time of day it was taken and looks unrealistic; EOSDIS Worldview images are preferred over these ones and we should keep consistency. The image is also zoomed in for some reason even though Sam is pretty obviously small. Doesn't give a good look for such an impressive storm at all Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image 1 or Image 2. I don't suggest Image 3 as it is blurred and does not have a clear view. Slight preference for Image 1 as @Hurricaneboy23: said. Hurricane4235 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

None. They’re all horrible pictures. Villian087 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of Jrdyhrberg. Noah^Talk 00:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Villian087: U have to choose one of them. Whichever is the best for u choose that. Hurricane4235 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that's just too bad for you, because we will be using one of those images. BTW, you have absolutely no right to order around other users, as you did at Talk:Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. (Not only that, you commented on a closed discussion, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.) None of us will make something happen just because you want it. Neither Wikipedia nor the real world revolves around you. Consider this a warning. This kind of behavior from you is unacceptable. Also, you remind me of a couple of users who recently left Wikipedia on bad terms. I highly doubt this is a simple coincidence. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

i pick 2 00:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Da6nuikedqaik (talk)

• Image 2 i think bet Da6nuikedqaik (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock of Mazum24. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image 2 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image 1 or 2 – Either one would work, because they are both decent images and close to the storm's peak intensity. However, I have a slight preference for Image 1. This is because Image 1 was taken a couple of hours before the storm peaked at 18:00 UTC on September 26, while Image 2 shows the storm beginning the process of weakening. Image 3 is a non-starter, as the image quality is much too low. BTW, this image wars need to stop. They've gone on for too long and they're absolutely unacceptable. If this kind warring continues, I think that the main offenders (mostly 3 or 4 users) should be subjected to 1RR sanctions, or a block. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to use these images on my draft of Sam. HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 21:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC) But to be exact I prefer Image 2 since it a little “3D” HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Image 2 because it higher quality and some details of the image is 3D even though it actually not HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Uh yeah image 2 is the better one. Actually I see that image 2 is higher quality, not 1 and image 1 is average style, image 2 is a little different so image 2 should be the one HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
      • But I do not want to start a editing war where I change to image 2 and you guys revert to image 1 and back and forth so I request to change it to image 2. HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• @LightandDark2000: I know I started this discussion but I do agree with you about people needing to stop editing wars over peak images, this is why I started this discussion so people would stop fighting over the images, but people need to be more responsible and quit fighting over them. Luckily as of the current revision of the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season and the last few revisions of the article nobody hasn't switched the images and settled with Image 1 so maybe the editing war is over, but we'll continue this discussion until everyone has their vote on Image 1 and 2, I honestly don't know why I put Image 3 on here, I know nobody isn't going to vote for it here, and honestly I think it's just Image 1 but in poorer quality and cropped out. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In this discussion, Everyone talked bad about Image 3 or didn’t even mention it So we can eliminate it out of the discussion so it up to a few more votes before the final image is decided but it likely be Image 1 but I prefer Image 2 so let wait until some more votes come in. HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I actually like image 3.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch(2): Now one person has talked good about Image 3. But still most of us are prefering 1 or 2 over 3. Hurricane4235 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

About 50% for image 1 and 40% for image 2 and 10% for image3 and image 1 already won since in the season image it image 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneResearch(2) (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch(2): Please understand that this is not a contest in which victory is based on winning a majority/plurality of votes, it's an effort to build consensus for using one image over another. Drdpw (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

i would say there all good. however... you're better off using image 2 or 3 due to me getting confused OrzonYT (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Image 2 It is much clearer than images 1 and 3.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicdat (talk • contribs)
• Are we actually doing this again? For the record slight preference for Image 1 because it is closer to peak and higher quality than Image 2. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image 1 Best looking image, closest to peak per other members. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note - The next time I see futile or meaningless image warring - especially from the constant offenders - I'm reporting to WP:ANI. Destroyer (Alternate account) 19:37, 12 October 2021 (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.

Should we add a Wikipedia page for Hurricane Sam (2021)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

At the time of the most recent comment on this RfC, there was/is a consensus for support for creating a separate article for Hurricane Sam. As I’m no topic expert, I don’t know if recent news has changed anyone’s mind on this and the matter may have already settled itself. But I am closing per the request. Some points to consider in this discussion

The RfC appeared mostly active while the hurricane was too new to know its full impact.

One major argument for a new article was to prevent bloat in the 2021 season section it’s currently mentioned in.

Over the course of this RfC, the consensus seemed to shift more and more towards support, with more editors changing their votes that way, than the opposite.

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Do you guys think should we make a page on Wikipedia for Sam? Since it a Cat 4 and Other major storms do have a page (example: Grace, Ida and Larry). HurricaneResearch (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: Hey there! It doesn't seem to be needed quite yet, as there are no forecasted or known impacts at the time, whereas there were for Grace, Ida, and Larry. If there end up being impacts from Sam, we could create an article then. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 23:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@codingcyclone My thoughts on the location the impact will be happening is in the Northern Leeward Islands and Bermuda HurricaneResearch (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: Per WP:FORUM, this is not the place to speculate on impact locations. Creating an article based on such speculation would violate WP:CRYSTAL. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Let just wait until Sam dissipate and all the information gathered in we will actually see the impact locations HurricaneResearch (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there at least maybe a draft for Sam currently? Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@KaiserJaguar No. I sent a draft but sadly they reviewed it and Rejected. HurricaneResearch (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

They reviewed it hours after I sent it HurricaneResearch (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose @HurricaneResearch: Please do not resubmit the draft until notability is established and reliable sources are present. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Destroyer (Alternate account) 02:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC) (See below)

• Too soon Wait, as it is too soon to know whether this Storm will have a close encounter with Bermuda or Atlantic Canada; looks like Sam will steer east of the Northern Leeward Islands. Drdpw (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

*Wait we need to wait, if Hurricane Sam will impact. HurricaneEdgar 03:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Too soon I do not oppose creating a page on Sam but it is too soon. We can do it like how we did it for Larry. Hurricane4235 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I Did It! My draft on Hurricane Sam is public now but it a work in progress draft. What in the draft are the current details not the final details so I will finish it when Sam dissipate HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 12:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

My draft is not the most reliable. It will be finished as soon as Sam dissipates HurricaneResearch (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Too soon Realistically, we should wait until Tuesday (or probably later) to even begin a draft. Sure, Sam's meteorological history is quite interesting, but until we get some clear picture of possible land impacts, I'm opposed to creating a draft just yet, even if Sam does something notable (e.g. become a Category 5). I say Tuesday because by then we can definitely determine where Sam may go (in regards to the Leeward Islands), or most likely much later when a clear path for Sam is beginning to set in stone (in regards to Bermuda/U.S. East Coast/Atlantic Canada). Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wait My money's on Sam being fairly notable even if it doesn't affect land, but whether or not that necessitates an article is TBD. No need to rush one yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No. News reports say that Sam will be a long lived storm and say that Sam can live until next weekend or Friday HurricaneResearch (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: A tropical cyclone being long-lived is not merit enough for an article. For a tropical cyclone to have its own article, it needs to have a clear amount of impacts and coverage in reliable sources (e.g. Tropical Storm Fay (2020)) or be meteorologically notable (e.g. Hurricane Grace (1991)). At present, Sam is neither of these since it didn't break any meteorological records, and, as far as we know, didn't cause any impacts. If, later, it breaks a significant record or has impacts somewhere, we can create an article then. Thank you. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 18:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: Agreed with CodingCyclone. We also do not create articles based on what a storm is forecast to do, only what it actually does. Again see WP:CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If Sam does become a Category 5 (which is possible at this stage), would that be notably enough meteorologically to render a draft? (While I'd disagree with this sentiment, I'd understand if a draft was made in such scenario). Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Kaiser Jaguar

It would not be. If Sam were to become a category 5, while it would be in rare company in its current area, that itself is not enough to warrant a draft creation. We need to wait and see what potential impacts Sam has on Bermuda and Eastern North America before we discuss further a draft. Gumballs678 talk 22:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone replaced my draft with a Redirect page HurricaneResearch (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If your the one who did that then your not allowed to do it any more HurricaneResearch (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: The consensus is currently against having an article for Sam until it has notable effects. You are a new editor and you haven't really learned the ropes. You certainly don't get to decide what other editors are or aren't allowed to do. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I did that, and did so on the basis of what I and our fellow editors have said above. Drdpw (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: An article cooking in draftspace doesn't do any harm. There's no need to blank/redirect it, especially if its contents can later be used in an actual article. By the looks of it, most of the above have agreed that an article can wait, and they are correct. However, this does not bar anyone from writing a draft at Draft:Hurricane Sam. What would be against consensus would be someone writing an article at Hurricane Sam instead. @HurricaneResearch: Right now, editors are agreeing that an article is not deserved. As such, it is highly suggested that you do not submit the draft unless it has established notability. Draft submissions have a limit; a draft can be barred from entering namespace if declined too many times. I've restored the draft for now, but I still suggest holding off on submitting until much later when the storm has a sizable impact. Chlod (say hi!) 23:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: An additional note: consider using existing storm articles as a basis for your draft. In addition, you may want to format the draft in a way that abides by the WikiProject Tropical cyclones style guide. Chlod (say hi!) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I hold off the submission and submit once I got enough notability details on the other hand if it not notable when it dissipate I will delete the draft HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 19:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• For now, let's not make a article, until either it hits Bermuda and has significant damage there, or hits Atlantic Canada. But it's too early to tell whether we make a article, because it has not impacted land, except for rip currents. It will miss Bermuda at a direct hit so far by the forecasts, but Atlantic Canada is not ruled out yet. Let's wait until it will be a strike for land, but so far, the article about Hurricane Sam can't be published yet. Kangsea0 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• If it reaches category 5 (unlikely) could the page be created? This type is rare. André L P Souza (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, probably not. The closest analog I can think of is Hurricane Lorenzo (2019), but that one is more notable because it was the easternmost Atlantic Category 5 storm on record, it produced fatalities, and it impacted Europe as a post-tropical cyclone. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• If Sam doesn’t have any casualties in Bermuda (I say Bermuda because warnings are issued there already) then I will delete the draft HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 00:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I say that Sam's meteorological history is quite interesting and worthy enough for an article (It is becoming a pretty long lasting major hurricane, and could reach the Top 10 for ACE count for Atlantic hurricanes). I think maybe it'll be best to release this much later (in case of impacts to Greenland/Iceland/UK/Mainland Europe), but I think it has far more meat for a notable article than something like Tropical Storm Danny (2021) that actually has an article. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Kaiser Jaguar

@KaiserJaguar Sam is a long lasting hurricane. Larry lasted 13 days earlier this year and Sam is 12 days. HurricaneResearch (talk ) 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this is nothing but a fish storm. Unless there are long term effects, in depth coverage, and/or scholarly analysis then WP:ENN applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: In my opinion that's not an excuse to leave Sam with no article, there are plenty of "fish" tropical cyclones within the past that has their own articles. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Kaiser Jaguar

other stuff exists is not a valid argument. The point about notability, or lack thereof, is valid. Drdpw (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes,@Kaiser Jaguar: but any storms that you mention all had at least some sort of historical significance or damage and impacts, or had some sort of record broken that made them notable. While a hurricane like Sam might be interesting for becoming so strong over the open ocean, it hasn't really done any sort of damage or done anything that would really warrant an article at this time. See WP:GNG, and WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Article guidlines. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – same reasoning as Knowledgekid87. We already have too many fish storms with articles. United States Man (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sam has weakened to a Category 2 after a whole week of being a major storm but it still can last for a few more days and it lifespan currently is tied with Hurricane Larry (2021). HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 12:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: while Sam's notoriety of being a major hurricane for 7 days is incredible, it isn't enough to give the storm an article. Gumballs678 talk 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Larry's notability for an article stems more for its impacts than its meteorological history. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Fair enough, I guess that it'll be fine to leave Sam without an article for right now, though possibly if it has some significant effects for Greenland/Iceland/Europe then it may be worthy enough of an article. For now, I'm just waiting for the inevitable when the Top 10 for Atlantic Hurricane ACE list would have to be adapted to include Sam. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Kaiser Jaguar

• Sam is finally gone now, and the 51st and last advisory has been issued. We probably already have too much of an MH to fit into the main article without bloating it (the main article already being huge due to the large number of storms) given the long life of Sam, and there's impacts to come from Sam's post-tropical remnants in Europe. Surely, we'll need an article to fit in all that information without bloating the season article. Support. We have more than enough information to create a separate article now. JavaHurricane 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Additionally, I'm thinking of Hurricane Hector (2018) as well. As Hector survived a merger proposal, there exists, I suppose, a consensus that hurricanes with very long meteorological histories can have separate articles to prevent bloating. JavaHurricane 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think Sam needs an article as NHC forecasts say that its extratropical remnants would impact Iceland. Plus Sam is more notable than Danny to have an article so I think Sam will need an article. Hurricane4235 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• My guess is that it would then be included under windstorms rather than a hurricane, if more notable impacts are from "Windstorm Sam". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Due to the fact that I don’t think Sam can adequately be mentioned in the season section, an article is warranted. Let’s not make this harder than this actually is. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support If Sam does have a notable impact on Iceland, I support creating a page for Sam, as his current section is far too long. Abowlingbulb (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)ABowlingBulb

Sam could easily be mentioned in the season section. His current section needs to be cleaned up. It's meant to be a summary of the storm, not every little thing that happened with it. Its origins, its evolution into a hurricane, major hurricane, peak intensity, secondary peak, and then subsequent weakening and transition into an extratropical cyclone. The notability about the storm's individual ACE can be mentioned elsewhere. Sam is not the first storm to be a long-lived storm with no land effects. Even if Sam brings impacts to Iceland as an extratropical cyclone, it can still be mentioned in the season summary. Gumballs678 talk 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors in general (registered and not) have a bad habit of the "awe" factor when it comes to these types of storms. This is where they place as much intricate detail only of interest to a specific audience as possible into an article or section. I am not casting blame on anyone as there is a very real fan community in the form of storm chasers. Its important to judge the notability outside of the community though before adding these things in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Just clarifying why Sam shouldn't have an article. Gumballs678 talk 22:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Should I point out to both of you that FAs are supposed to satisfy an expert? Clearly, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT considering the community at large is pointing out articles lacking the so-called CRUFT aren't comprehensive enough in meteorological coverage and are being FARed. Technical meteorological content is REQUIRED, however, it needs to be presented in a way that the common audience can understand. There is a line between sufficient detail and too much. What you are calling for is far too little detail. This isn't a FA or a candidate, however, we need to strive to reach that level of quality. I support a met-based article for this storm considering its extensive meteorological history that is similar to other storms that have their own articles. Noah^Talk 02:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: Can it easily be mentioned in the season section though? Normally your reasoning is a pretty sound but there comes to a time where a storm outgrows its season section length, and Sam's season section is 463 words as is, and still missing a few things (doesn't really touch on why it strengthened, or how recon recorded 929 mbars in pressure, or go into any preps/impacts in Bermuda). When I was more active as a writer of hurricane articles, I'd consider splitting the season section off at around 300 words for a season of an average number of sections. There's a long standing precedent for MH only articles in select cases like Sam (see John, Hector, Nida) precisely because they tend to outgrow the season section length, and I don't think the opposition here, which historically tends to focus their contributions to only the current season, has given this a particular large amount of interest in respecting. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: You don't need to be an expert to know that hurricanes form over warm water and can strengthen, weaken, and re-strenghen over time. These are normal circumstances that don't need explaining unless there is something unusual in how the hurricane forms per WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral I’m kind of split about Sam having its own page as of now, there’s some aspects of it having its own page with its longevity as a Major Hurricane and high producing ACE points. But there’s some aspects of it not having a page, one it didn’t cause any damage or thankfully didn’t caused any causalities usually that’s when we make a Wikipedia page about a storm. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually yes, but if there's any hurricane in the Atlantic that prompts it not being a usual case, it's Sam, so your reasons doesn't make sense given Sam is the most MH-lengthy (at least judging by its ACE) out to sea storm the basin has ever produce. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reliable source or two for that? You can't just look at the ACE and make that judgement per WP:V and WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • In theory, you could cite the HURDAT best track and it would technically suffix if we accept the premise that ACE falls under WP:CALC. However, since you asked, here is the source (Twitter counts as an RS in this instance because Phil Klotzbach is verified). Sam is fifth with the other 4 storms having all made landfall. But, I think you are missing my point here... YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not entirely opposed to an article. However, there hasn't been an agreed upon reason as to why Sam should have an article. Has anyone tried to trim the storm's summary to see if it will sufficiently fit? Again, it is meant to be a summary, not everything needs to be included. Obviously its ambiguous peak intensity needs to be included because that will be confusing to readers if it's not. It's ACE stat is verified via Klotzbach, but it doesn't necessarily need to be included in Sam's summary. I'm all for storms receiving articles, but not for the sake of giving it one because it's prose is too long when we haven't tried and at least see if it can still be made shorter with all the important details still intact. Gumballs678 talk 10:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I tried to trim it down earlier. Still over 400 words. And it's missing a few small things as is - doesn't mention why it moved how it did, how it briefly threatened Bermuda, or Recon's findings of a 929 mbar pressure. As for the ACE stat, I'm neutral on whether that should be included in the season section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We are absolutely not trimming it down. The summary is already a brief summary. When it comes to documentation on Wikipedia, more is better, not less. If there is already too much detail, then we need a separate article. In fact, there is already a lot of detail that isn't included that could be used to write a decent article, as seen in Hurricane Noah's draft. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Support – Per Hurricane Noah and JavaHurricane. Also, Sam had an extensive, notable meteorological history. This is already enough by itself to qualify for an individual article; any storms that have long enough of an MH to require content forking into a new article (such as Hurricane Nadine and Hurricane Hector (2018)) should automatically get their own articles. And Sam has the potential to cause impacts in Iceland later this week. We DO NOT need storms to have impacts in order for them to get an article. Not a single policy on Wikipedia says that. And I bet that you can't point one out to me, either. If a storm has a notable meteorological history (including records or longevity) and/or documented impacts, then it should get an article. Simple as that. Sam should and will be getting an article. We absolutely should not allow two or three users to hold an article hostage just because they don't like it. We need to do what's best for our readers on Wikipedia. Not what pleases the most users among a particular crowd. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa-alt and HurricaneEdgar: The situation has changed since this discussion began weeks ago. Sam is now notable enough for its own article. Are you still opposed to this storm having an article? LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't find one, because one doesn't exist. Sam is an oddity, yes. But, not every storm that is a meteorological oddity or long-lived has an article. Nadine had one because it's the 4th longest-lived Atlantic hurricane on record. Hector has one because it's the first Pacific hurricane to cross all three Northern Pacific basins since Genevieve in 2014. Sam was long-lived and was an intense hurricane in an unusual area, and lasted as an MH for the longest period since Hurricane Matthew. Again, I will reiterate, I'm not opposed to an article, I am opposed to an article without a necessary explanation as to why. I've read over Sam's summary and it should suffice enough, given how long the storm lasted and its oddities. We had this discussion multiple times last year. Furthermore, while more is better on Wikipedia, if prose for a summary is too long, it's often because there are things in that summary that don't need to be there. You mentioned Hurricane Noah's draft, do you have a link to it so others can see what details they are including that aren't currently in Sam's summary? Gumballs678 talk 18:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m currently deciding a peak image for Sam on the draft and putting in peak information as keep changing the draft to the latest updates is exhausting so the details you see when it published is not current details. It the peak details so don’t go to this discussion and say where the data that is the data. HurricaneResearch ([[User talk: HurricaneResearch | talk ] ] ) 21:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneResearch: This is off-topic from the discussion. It would be best to go with the consensus reached by the image discussion below. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I've changed my mind from earlier I've been thinking all day and I think Sam should have its own Wikipedia page especially what LightandDark2000 said earlier not all storm need impacts for them to have their own page. Storms can have an notable meteorological history for us to create a page for them like Hector in 2018. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support changing to support I thick sam need article. HurricaneEdgar 03:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Eh, I don't think all of this qualifies Sam for an article. Hector 2018 was a multi-basin crossover event so it's not comparable and Nadine was super long lasting with what seems to be more land impact than Sam. So I don't think they are good precedents for a Sam article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: A good comparison for length would be Dorian. It has lasted virtually the same amount of time as that one did and had a similar track (minus the landfalls). The issue I see here is a 400+ word section that discusses nothing of the why for movement, the 929 peak (how it happened; recon), or the threat to Bermuda, amongst other things. We also are unable to mention much related to structure without making this section too large as well. Not to mention the storm is still alive over the Northern Atlantic. The issue I foresee is outgrowing the section. A met article could easily take off the burden from this section to discuss so many details. Noah^Talk 09:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• • With Hurricane Noah's explanation as to why Sam should have an article, I will support the creation of an article for Sam. Gumballs678 talk 10:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Gumballs678: I agree with you that Hurricane Noah's explanation is also valid for Sam to have its own article. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Just saying, Tina from 1992 in the EPac was like Sam in that it was a long-lasting, strong tropical cyclone that affected land but did not cause any deaths nor damage. Tina has a full article. If Sam won't have its own article, then delete pages like Tina. And yes, I understand that at the time Tina had broken a record, but Sam is equally notable meteorologically. 72.240.131.143 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC) 18:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose Although I'm always willing to change opinions and talk, I think that Sam isn't exactly notable. Sure, it does have a long met history that may seem awkwardly long in its section, we shouldn't expect it to be equivalent in size to those of other storms this season considering how many short-lived storms ("shorties", as the NHC put it) there's been. So, a longer section doesn't necessarily mean a bad one. And from what I've seen, most coverage of the storm wasn't very comprehensive and mostly speculation about its intentsity and potential impacts as opposed to actual strength and impact. JayTee🕊️ 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• @JayTee32: You do realize we create meteorology-based articles when a storm outgrows its section? The section for Sam is by no means a comprehensive coverage of the topic and lacks quite a bit of detail as mentioned above. There are reputable sources outside the NHC that covered aspects of the storm as well. Considering this storm lasted about the same amount of time as Dorian, you could expect a similar-sized article (for met history). Noah^Talk 00:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah: I'm aware of this, but I still think that Sam was no more than an overhyped storm. And generally meteorological articles have some sort of other notability, like Epsilon 2005, Pali 2016, or your own FA, Hector 2018. Sam? No records broken, practically no land affect, therefore no WP:NOTABILITY. Frankly, this practice seems wrong to me since a storm doesn't automatically become notable just because it was long-lived and "outgrows" its section. We shouldn't make an article for Sam just because we don't like the size of its section; there's no rule that every storm's section has to be small and not exceed a certain amount of paragraphs. I say we expand as much as is necessary. JayTee🕊️ 02:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @JayTee32:The issue is the storm is notable to begin with as it had significant coverage in news sources. This sense of notability beyond what Wikipedia imposes is just people coming up with their own personal criteria. This storm and every other storm in the Atlantic almost always gets enough news coverage to pass GNG. The storm isn't automatically becoming notable, it already was. It's just the storms with impact are considered much more notable. And yes there is a rule regarding section size. We aren't allowed to put undue weight on a singular topic within an article. We can't simply expand out the Sam section as much as we want as it would put too much emphasis on one portion of the topic (2021 AHS) while neglecting leaving others with too little. Thus why a split has been suggested. Noah^Talk 02:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah: I'm thinking of WP:PLOT here. This article would pretty much just be a meteorological summary of Sam. Like I said earlier, most of the news sources were mere speculation about the impact Sam could have, not actual info about what the storm did to make itself notable. As for section size, I don't necessarily think undue weight applies if we describe Sam with the same amount of detail we describe other storms, even if its section turns out longer due to its longevity. For example, if we do an in-depth summary of storms like Ana and that takes a paragraph, Sam's might take two or three. This isn't too much focus on Sam, this is just treating it the same as Ana or any other 2021 storm. We just have to watch for over-detailing fluctuations in intensity and things of that matter, which bloats the section to larger than it needs to be. JayTee🕊️ 12:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @JayTee32:Even Hector's basin crossing was not all that notable. Sam was a major for a similar amount of time to Hector, however, the bar is higher in the Atlantic for records. With 20 storm sections and any others we get before the end of the year, we can't go into any detail about storm structure, why it moved the way it did, how it went from being quite a small storm to a large one, and the processes involved in the extratropical transition to name a few things. Sam's ET track extends to October 9. This is an incomplete rendering of what a met article would look like. It's not small, but it doesn't mention every single change that occurred. Keep in mind this isn't done and doesnt include scholarly sources out there that exist either. Noah^Talk 13:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @JayTee32: You note that "No records broken, practically no land affect, therefore no WP:NOTABILITY. Frankly, this practice seems wrong to me since a storm doesn't automatically become notable just because it was long-lived and "outgrows" its section. We shouldn't make an article for Sam just because we don't like the size of its section; there's no rule that every storm's section has to be small and not exceed a certain amount of paragraphs. I say we expand as much as is necessary." I strongly disagree with this FWIW. As far as I'm concerned, Sam (like most tropical cyclones) meets WP:N because they receive coverage outside the RMSC's. So if one were to apply that reasoning, every tropical cyclone would receive an article. However, this this would result in lots of short, stubby articles, whose information would be better off more thoroughly discussed in the season section. This isn't the case with Sam, however, for the reasons outlined throughout this section. Any section that would be three paragraphs long absolutely should be split up, and even two paragraphs is borderline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah and Yellow Evan: I still personally oppose this since the draft, long as is, still seems to be a mere summary of Sam's extensive met history, which doesn't seem to pass the notability req. However, I recognize that both of you are much more experienced editors than myself so I trust that, and surely opposition from others may come down the road once the article's created. Therefore, I'm now neutral and will pull out of this discussion. JayTee🕊️ 13:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

*Observation Given that the draft article is apparently going to be ≤90% meteorological history and even though there is not a main 'Hurricane Sam' article, perhaps a more apropos title for the new article would be Meteorological history of Hurricane Sam. Drdpw (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. We don't use that title unless a storm has both a main article and a MH content fork article. Sam isn't one of those cases. We have plenty of TC articles that are mostly or entirely MH, such as Hurricane Nadine and Hurricane Genevieve (2014). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, essentially in agreement with LightandDark2000. --Dylan620 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Let just stop talking about this. We have more topics to talk about and beside, this a old discussion. It should be resolved by now but since it not, then it should be closed. HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. After reading through Noah's comments and the draft, I now believe that there is sufficient notability and information for an article. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:OWNership. This is getting disruptive. Destroyer (Alternate account) 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m back (HurricaneResearch is me) and on my new account I think that Sam do need a article but from Hurricane Noah’s reasoning there too much information on sam so no one want to waste their time on it so the draft will never be submitted HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC) I just realized that Hurricane Noah changed my hurricane Sam draft and claimed it his by changing everything to his words. HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC) When I checked my submission denied discussion, it lead to the page HurricaneResearch(2) (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC) At this point, I seriously do not care, just have someone create a draft for Sam and leave that up to deliberation instead of arguing whether it should be created or not. Doesn't matter who create it or why, if the draft holds up enough and it's determined to remain, it should remaain. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Kaiser Jaguar

• I will finish the draft if this discussion is closed with consensus in favor of an article. Otherwise, I will work on other topics until such time. Noah^Talk 15:27, 19 October 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021 (2)

2601:647:4201:B9D0:55EA:7F7A:5F46:C2F2 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No request was made of what you want changed. Requests must be along the lines of "Change X to Y." TornadoLGS (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Guys there was a random IP address vandalizing the page earlier I think the page need to be protected again. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Strongest support in the entire universe(even though that doesn't exist) Yes a LOT of IPs will vandalize this page so PROTECT IT! Hurricane4235 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Request has been submitted at RPP. United States Man (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

Add(or something along these lines): "2021 marks the first time back to back seasons used up all 21 names on the hurricane list" 198.217.121.194 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Now noted in the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we need Auxiliary list

Do we need the auxiliary list? Since no storms are forming after Victor, and meteorologists are thinking that not much storms are going to pop out in the future, so either we can keep it or remove it. Third option is, we can only put 2 names there and keep it that way until a storm pops up. Is this a good option?Severestorm28 (talk)

I'd leave it up for now, since it wouldn't take much to pop off a couple late-season storm (and some favorable conditions apparently exist in the Gulf and Caribbean). Even if it is unlikely that we'll make it to the third auxiliary name, we should keep the three columns to match the main naming list, to keep the text formatting balanced. Personally, I'm an "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" type; I'd wait until late December to remove the auxiliary list, just since we're so close to the end of the regular list. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It is more than likely that there will be at least one more named storm this year, and, based on the past few seasons, quite possible that there will be 2-3 more. I suggest keeping the six names currently there. I would also be okay with reducing the auxiliary names listed to the first three. Drdpw (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw I'd leave it with three, if people agree with making it three names in the Auxiliary List. Severestorm28 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be left as is. As it is still October 20. While the month has been unusually quiet, activity could persist into November, allowing the auxiliary list to be used. As last year, we'll keep the practice of revealing the first set of 3 names and if the 3rd name is used, reveal the next set. And if one name is used in that second list upon the season's end on November 30, then the others can be removed. Should Wanda form and no storms after it develop, then the auxiliary list can be removed. For now, leave it as is. Gumballs678 talk 14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree – leave first six names currently posted. Drdpw (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with this as well. I will update some other information as well later on. Severestorm28 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wanda's Precursor

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.

---

Seeing as the nor'easter that became Wanda did have significant impact on the East Coast, would an article on the cyclone simply be "October 2021 nor'easter", or would this information be included in a Subtropical Storm Wanda article? JayTee🕊️ 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends. Wanda likely won't get a dedicated article due to not being expected to effect land at all. HavocPlayz — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocPlayz (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If the nor'easter receives an article, Wanda would likely be listed in it and we would subsequently link it here. Wanda itself likely would not receive an article as it hasn't had any significant impacts since its formation. Gumballs678 talk 14:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Gumballs, If the nor'easter receives an article (though I would question whether one is warranted), then Wanda would receive mention in its opening paragraph, as is the case for Tropical Depression Sixteen of the 2008 season in the October 2008 Central America floods article. I also concur with the stated reasons why Wanda will not likely get its own article. Drdpw (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I agree that Wanda itself is not notable enough for an article, I'm just curious if an article on the nor'easter would need to cover its entire meteorological history (including is subtropical phase), or if we could cut off at Wanda's formation. JayTee🕊️ 16:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I should think the meteorological history section of an article on the nor'easter would include a paragraph covering the formation, greatest intensity, and dissipation of Wanda. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. United States Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that we would at least include a paragraph just summarizing the meteorological history and include the track on the nor'easter article, but i'm not too sure. Maybe something like how Columbus Day Storm of 1962 is structured (obviously the history of the extratropical storm would come first followed Wanda's, but just the general layout/ idea of the article as a format), but I am not too sure. I'll see what others say. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The system is the same, therefore impacts must be recorded regardless of cyclone power. Wanda deserves its own article, in addition that its subtropical and tropical structure has not caused any impact. Of the Lusophone Wikipedia, for example, a subtropical storm Raoni obtains an article of his own, the same impacts by those described, for example when it was an extratropical cyclone André L P Souza (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am supporting an article, only if it is named Tropical Storm Wanda/2021 United States Nor'easter, like Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal where each storm had a separate section. Abowlingbulb (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the place to discuss an article for a nor'easter. While it happened to transition into now Tropical Storm Wanda, that itself is not sufficient enough to warrant Wanda having an article. As we are on the talkspace for tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic, discussing an article for a nor'easter seems out of place. As I mentioned earlier, should the nor'easter receive an article, it would likely mention Wanda and subsequently be linked back to this main article in Wanda's subsection. Gumballs678 talk 00:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We certainly won't be using such a clunky, convoluted title here. For Amanda/Cristobal, we really didn't have any other choice. It was a single regeneration event that received two different names. This isn't the case with Wanda. It has only been given one name, so it will use a simple title for its article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Wanda in the title due to lack of significance and not being the common name for the event. Noah^Talk 00:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Wanda will be getting an article. Make no mistake about that. In fact, it already has a draft, which needs to be finished soon and published. It was more than significant enough as a nor'easter to warrant getting its own article, and the fact that it hasn't had any impacts as a named tropical system yet is completely irrelevant. As for the people who say that only the nor'easter period should be mentioned in the article, we cannot do that. As Wikipedia editors, we are obligated to include the storm's entire history, including both the nor'easter and tropical periods, and all of the relevant impacts. We don't get to cherry-pick and choose what gets included and what gets left out. It's either all or nothing. Everything about the storm must be included in its article. We need to present our readers with the complete story. BTW, any incomplete article with only the nor'easter portion or just the tropical portion would never make it to GA, let alone FA status, so we don't really have a choice. The only issue that needs to be settled is how we title the article, and which infobox we use. We have two options here. Either we take the Typhoon Freda option and give the page an EC format, or we use a Perfect Storm option and use a TC format. Either way, ALL of the relevant information on this storm must be included. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd opt for going with the EC format given that it became "Wanda" days after the damage was done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Any article that is published on Wanda will get immediately merged back into this page, so it should be about the nor'easter and mention Wanda within that. Wanda itself is not enough to stand as an article. United States Man (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Nope, sorry. The article exists: Tropical Storm Wanda (2021) 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • The relevancy of Wanda not causing any impacts as a TC is relevant, because as a (S)TC, it has not. As a nor'easter it did, which is why this discussion was brought up. No one is cherry-picking information about Wanda nor the nor'easter. It was about how to include both into an article. If we're giving Wanda an article based on the fact that its precursor was a damaging nor'easter, then that's fine. If there's already a draft on Wanda that formats it as a TC and mentions its origins as a nor'easter (as the draft does), then the title should be "Tropical Storm Wanda", as it stands now. Gumballs678 talk 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
          • It’s fine if it mentions the substantial history of the nor’easter and ultimate transition from extratropical to tropical. It just cannot be simply about the storm just before and after it acquired the name Wanda. There isn’t enough relevant information by itself to stand alone, no matter how much word fluff you use. United States Man (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
            • I agree. The article itself can be kept, however it should be restructured and renamed. The storm that did the damage was the Nor'easter that proceeded Wanda. It simply doesn't make sense to have an article on the tropical cyclone itself and mention the nor'easter, when the extra-tropical part is what we should be focusing and writing on. As such I support the Typhoon Freda approach for how the article should be formatted. It just makes sense. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think Wanda should get its own article standalone. its notable enough to an extent as its the final name of the list and we wasted all 21 names. We should wait and see what Wanda does a post-tropical cyclone in the azores before we dedicate an article HavocPlayz — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocPlayz (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @HavocPlayz: Wanda may not be notable, but its precursor was. I had no power for 4 days because of the nor'easter. Any storm that does that is definitely article-worthy. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats where the issue comes in. theres hardly enough things to put in impacts and aftermath since its so new. we could hold off till maybe the TCR or till more damage reports start coming in but i ain't removing it unless we get a consensus on that HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that an applicable example here would be Tropical Storm Leslie (2000). The storm barely affected land while tropical, but it had a costly precursor that caused nearly $1 billion in damage in southern Florida. The article discusses both the trough and Leslie in sufficient detail in the Met History, and the Impact section focuses almost exclusively on the trough. I feel that the Wanda article can stand as it is now, assuming that it retains the current detail it has about both the nor'easter's history and Wanda's. And the impact section can be similar to Leslie's (which is a GA), which focuses almost exclusively on its precursor. JayTee🕊️ 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think that Wanda will potentially get a article, because due to Leslie, I partially agree with this idea. However, there are lots of articles containing that the storm stayed offshore, and the storm gets an article. For example, Tropical Storm Colin 2010 dissipated before reaching Bermuda. Then how would Colin get an article and Wanda won't? Wanda impacted the U.S., then it might impact the Azores, which is a hundred miles away from Wanda. We can settle on this idea, but some other responses concerning to not create a article about Wanda is possible at this time. Severestorm28 talk 1:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: An article exists: Tropical Storm Wanda (2021); further discussion here is pointless. Drdpw (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2021 (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.

Is there away to retain consistent columns for the name list?

@Drdpw and Tholme: First, I apologize for my previous edits. On my screen, the naming list displays five columns and "orphans" Wanda, so I thought I was correcting it back to three columns. Though, if I use my second monitor, it it displays seven columns. Is there a compromise that doesn't violate MOS but keeps at least relatively even columns? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This probably needs to be discussed at the project level. As every season article in each basin is potentially affected, we need a solution that can be implemented project wide. Drdpw (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:IAR in this case for consistency. United States Man (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

One thing I know for sure: using tables to format columns is even more atrocious than using {{columns-list}}, mainly because you're locking the column width and count, completely disrespecting screen proportions of mobile users and users with large screens. If the goal is to keep stable column lengths, perhaps we can just shrink the column width?

• Ana
• Bill
• Claudette
• Danny
• Elsa
• Fred
• Grace
• Henri
• Ida
• Julian
• Kate
• Larry
• Mindy
• Nicholas
• Odette
• Peter
• Rose
• Sam
• Teresa
• Victor
• Wanda (unused)

Saves the headache of going against MOS:LTAB. Chlod (say hi!) 02:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we could do this way, any other possible ideas, if there is a option. Severestorm28 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Odette image

@Hurricaneboy23: In File:Odette 2021-09-18 1500Z.jpg , Odette is already extratropical. Per the TCR, Odette turned extratropical at 12Z on September 18. The images in the infobox should be when the storm is tropical/subtropical. It doesn't matter if it's "closer to peak". Additionally, nowhere is it written that EOSDIS worldview images are "favored" over NESDIS images. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why people gotta cause random image wars lmao, it's so annoying. --HurricaneKappa (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Its better to use images of its (sub)tropical peak and save its extratropical cyclone peak for its dedicated article(if the system gets one), like we did with this years Wanda HavocPlayz (talk)

Tropical depressions

The 2021 season is the first since 2012 in which all tropical depressions developed into tropical storms. Is this too trivial to put in the article? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably. It's cool, but it's not really something that we need to share. I'm curious to see other people's thoughts on the topic. Gumballs678 talk 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

50/50, its cool to finally see a season with no failed systems cause otherwise we wouldn't have had Wanda by now. HavocPlayz (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An interesting factoid, but it does seem a bit too trivial for mention. (Like the fact that this will be the second season in a row without a Category 5 hurricane) Drdpw (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm letting my interest in this sort of thing cloud my judgement, but beyond the interest level, I think there's some solid notability here where it would make sense to include this information, but wouldn't push the issue too much if the consensus is against. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If this detail comes to be mentioned in news stories, tweets and blogs, then it will become notable trivia. Drdpw (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's mentioned anywhere, it would be mentioned in the seasonal summary, but I still think it's too trivial. It's a cool fact like we've said, but there's not really any notability around it. 21 tropical cyclones formed and were all assigned names. Gumballs678 talk 01:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There's 26 days until the season ends and 57 days until a tropical cyclone that forms in the North Atlantic doesn't count towards the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season. This statement is still quite premature, and anyway we need a reliable source backing it up if we want to mention it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have a source? I'd have no issue mentioning it if such info could be sourced. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

even then the count of 21 depressions is slightly inaccurate as some of this years systems formed directly into a tropical storm, like Fred and Wanda HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A storm is understood to have been a depression beforehand, even if not operationally recognized as such. United States Man (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, there have not been 21 tropical depressions this season, and the article does not make such a statement. The article does not state the number of depressions formed this season. The lead states that 21 named storms have formed. See the 2020 article leaded is worded when one tropical or subtropical cyclone forms but does not strengthen into a subtropical or tropical storm. Drdpw (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is incorrect. A storm is understood to have been a depression beforehand, even if not operationally recognized as such. United States Man (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

TCR updates

Some of the TCRs have been released, can we keep these in mind and update when necessary? So far the only possible changes I've noticed are with the times of formation and extratropical transition of Odette. (I'd add the changes myself but I'm on mobile rn and don't want to bother with formatting the reference.) Mvhcmaniac (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as the various TCRs are published adjustments should be made to the individual storm subsections. Also, there may be a major re-write of the entire 'System' section next spring once the bulk of TCRs are published, as was done to the 2020 season article. Drdpw (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Last system dissapated

so its been about a week since wanda dissapated and there is no signs for significant development for tropical Cyclones in the basin, so do we just but the last system dissapated as November 7? OrzonYT (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Premature, as the season does not end until November 30. Drdpw (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Drdpw. United States Man (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

We should wait until it's December 1, technically, since November 30 is the last day. Probably good to have this, since we had an edit war over it last year. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with TornadoLGS, the hurricane season doesn't end until November 30. It shouldn't end early. Severestorm28 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

Change

Main article: Tropical Storm Wanda (2021)

to

Main article: October 2021 nor'easter

173.168.100.26 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: why? Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would take this is referring to the name change for the article done recently. (which I'm a little miffed I missed because it seems to go against conventions but okay then) DarkSide830 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done I'm not too familiar with the storm, but I see there was a move discussion, and the name was changed, so I'm not going to argue with it. Also it appears that the change has already been made to this article, so I have closed the edit request tag. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Template:Broader (For broader coverage of this topic, see …) is often used in such instances, as is Template:See also, in Atlantic/Pacific hurricane/typhoon season articles rather than "Main". Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Broader vs. Template:Main vs. Template:See also

There are three different templates with varying levels of support for usage regarding Wanda. Here they are:

For broader coverage of this topic, see October 2021 nor'easter.

Main article: October 2021 nor'easter

and

See also: October 2021 nor'easter

Which one should be used in this article? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of looking into template documentation should make it clear that none of these are to be used, since {{Further}} is the correct template in this case. The section on Wanda describes Wanda specifically, a subtopic of October 2021 nor'easter. {{Further}} is the prescribed template per Template:Main/doc and Template:Broader/doc. Chlod (say hi!) 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Either further or see also. It definitely shouldn’t be main article and I never liked the broader template. United States Man (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting past AHS article practice correctly, Template:Main should not be used. It appears that either Template:Broader or Template:See also is used in subsections where the hyperlinked article title does not reflect the subsection title. I'm of the opinion that this practice should be followed in the Wanda subsection; my preference leans toward Template:Broader. Drdpw (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on my understanding of WP policies, {{Further}} would probably be the most appropriate template to use in this case. The "See also" template is absolutely out of the question, as the nor'easter/Wanda article doesn't just mention Wanda (unlike some of our flood articles on tropical depressions and tropical lows), but covers it in its entirety, from beginning to end (nor'easter to tropical storm). "See also" is to be used only if the subject isn't directly related, or if the linked article doesn't go into the subject in full depth. While the "Broader" and "Main" template could technically be used (more so the "Broader" template), Chlod is the template nerd/expert here, so I will defer to his judgement. He may not have had a tenure quite as long as some of us here, but he's definitely much more knowledgeable when it comes to topics like coding and templates. I may have been a WP editor for 12 years and one of the WPTC "veterans", but I have enough wisdom and maturity at this point in life to acknowledge when someone else is more of an expert on the subject than I am. So I think we should use the "Further" template here, for Freda (1962), and all other analogous cases out here. Honestly, though, there probably aren't that many of them. Also, STOP with the edit warring. This is completely ridiculous. Not to mention that this was one of the dumbest edit wars I have ever witnessed on WP, period. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding Weather of 2021 to the See also section

Should we add Weather of 2021 to the see also section? I originally added it, and then another editor, Drdpw removed it saying "usually only include other "current season" tropical cyclone articles". While that is the case, the "weather by year" articles just recently started with Weather of 2020, which actually is in need of a lot of fixing. The Weather of 2021 is the second article of "weather by years", so this would be something new that would be added to the see also sections. Because of how new this type of article list is, we have no previous discussions about it, so let's have the discussion. Should the Weather of 2021 list style article be added to the See also section of this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Just add it. Who cares. There’s a bunch of stupid fighting around this project over things don’t don’t amount to anything. I’ve been guilty of it myself, but it’s definitely a habit of newer users. United States Man (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, I was following WP:BRD because I needed to start following Wiki policy more closely due to some conversations with admins. Yeah, small nit-picky things seem to get discussed all the time, but that is part of Wikipedia I guess. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a trivial thing to fight over, but, so far we are following WP:BRD. I do agree on including it, though. Arguments of what we usually do or don't can't really be applied in this case, since this is a whole new set of articles within the project. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it defeats the purpose of having one when it's essentially a summary of the weather that happened in the year, something that is already discussed in the respective weather's pages'. Why have a Tropical/subtropical "summary" subsection when there's an entire page dedicated to that year's tropical cyclone activity, which is already linked. Gumballs678 talk 02:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)