Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Temporarily lock edits to suggestion only because of vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1178136063

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1178135047

Examples of why Blueony (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Blueony, the appropriate page to ask for a lock is WP:RPP. Note that you are probably not autoconfirmed so you may not be able to make a request and that I have tried getting protection with this page with several problematic (though most good faith) edits and failed. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Harold: Revisited

Spanish Wikipedia has an article on Harold that has 18,000 bytes and a pretty sizable impacts and preparations section. If we translated the rest of the information over to English and kinked out some stuff, would the article be notable enough to stand-alone? If not, should we just take Spanish's sources and put their info here? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 01:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Certain parties don’t want that to happen, despite a very similar storm (Tropical Storm Fernand (2019)) basically impacting the same area and causing negligible damage. From the way it goes apparently nearly every storm that touches land gets an article eventually. Harold was the first tropical cyclone to impact the US this year, so notability doesn’t matter here. Certain individuals are just being lazy, there is no reason for an article to not exist and it meets WP:GNG easily. 2605:8D80:405:663C:9D8C:5EC3:B300:B888 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:Mitch199811 I have no clue what this random IP is going on about. We could definitely make a Harold article if we translate the Spanish page and use similar/reliable sources. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The information in the Spanish article is already in this article. I am looking for additional details that might be added. Drdpw (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Some parts of the Spanish article are just predictions. There was a claim that the Texan Governor said something but the source provided was fruitless. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 17:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I was about to note that very thing. Drdpw (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I made the article, I think it's sufficiently long and notable enough to warrant a stand-alone. Jay Tee⛈️ 03:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Harold article

I have been WP:Bold and created an article on Tropical Storm Harold. I know that User:Drdpw believes that the storm isn't notable and to avoid any edit warring I wanted to civilly settle the matter here. Here are my arguments for keeping Harold:

1. It clearly passes WP:GNG as it was discussed by a variety of secondary sources, and its damage and impact on land make it notable in and of itself.

2. The storm broke rainfall records in Corpus Christi, and extensive impacts from the storm were reported that simply cannot be cut out or covered in this article without bloating Harold's section.

3. Harold ~~is not a low-notability storm, and~~ has an even longer or similar-length prose to storms like Hurricane Shary, Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and Tropical Storm Danny (2021), all of which survived contested deletion.

I therefore would like to keep the article Jay Tee⛈️ 03:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh. Harold is definitely a "low-notability" storm. The issue is not notability in most cases as it is article length. FWIW, draft:Tropical Storm Harold (2023) (which still exists for some reason) was what I had previously cited when I stated that the article was not worthy of posting on account of all of the material in that article being covered by the season article. You've sufficiently fleshed out an article beyond that point, so it's okay. And, you should note that the articles you mention didn't have consensus to keep on notability, but rather there was no consensus to merge. In all reality, none of those storms were even "low-notability" - they wouldn't even have articles about them if they weren't cyclones names by the NHC. But that isn't how the system works. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that those storms have articles not because of them being named by the NHC- but rather because of their sufficient notability, even if they just barely made the cut, due to their impacts or meteorological significance. They all pass GNG as well. And the no consensus to merge, I believe, further supports the idea that they're sufficiently notable- merging would've gotten rid of too much valuable, encyclopedic (and thereby notable) information about them. Harold clearly has enough information to warrant its own article, even if it is, admittedly, a low-notability storm. My point is that the article stands based on the information I've "fleshed out", so to speak. Jay Tee⛈️ 04:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

One thing the Harold article is missing is the storm persisting into Utah. I remember when the remnants were active, how far into the interior western United States it got. The article looks pretty good though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile Do you happen to have a source on that? I thought the remnants dissipated just north of the Texas-Mexico border, and didn't find any recorded impact in Utah while researching the storm - Fox News just briefly mentioned a flood watch for the region, although I think this was more due to Hurricane Hilary's remnants than Harold's. Jay Tee⛈️ 16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here, for example, discusses the rainfall in Colorado helping tame the wildfires. The circulation may have dissipated over Texas, but the rainfall spread across the southwest. That’ll be a good way of adding more to the article, @JayTee32:. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually kind of take issue with articles like Harold. It seems like ANY tropical cyclone that makes landfall in the U.S. HAS to have an article, even if the only impacts were that it rained over an area for five minutes and a tree was knocked down. It seems like there is a fear of making sections for tropical cyclones that strike places too long when in reality, a good two-or-three paragraph summary would get the job done. All these individual storm articles for low-impact storms are redundant and we should start avoiding this. Also, the "these storms have articles too" argument is invalid because that falls under the Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ChessEric 18:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

While I do agree that it might be able to be condensed into this article, there is certainly more coverage on Harold than Kate or Margot. It might pass WP:NWEATHER depending on how large of impacts passes, though impacts makes up a couple paragraphs. I would also like to note that this article is pretty big; my computer chugs trying to process visual editor and it takes me a minute to find the right storm on mobile. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning @ChessEric but I feel that many tropical cyclones like Harold do deserve to have articles, even if they only make brief landfalls, as they serve as valuable contributions to Wikipedia by demonstrating the destructive capability each storm has and how they can impact residents of an area- both of which are important to people who live in cyclone-prone areas and therefore provide important, encyclopedic information. And the article is rather long by comparison to other storms- which I know is a WP:OSE argument, but what I mean by this is that the discussions we had on merging those storms failed on the same premise that people are arguing for the merging of Harold. It's less that other stuff exists for me and more about precedent established by those discussions. And a seasonal summary probably shouldn't have two-to-three paragraphs- it is, after all, supposed to be a summary of a storm's history/impacts, not very in-depth. This is why Harold has an article, as its impacts necessitate that we do go in depth about it in its own article. Jay Tee⛈️ Jay Tee⛈️ 00:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I still think that an article about a storm with minor impacts is being overly detailed. ChessEric 00:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

”Overly detailed”? What is this - Wikipedia? 😜 Just because it’s of minor importance doesn’t mean it’s not important enough to have an article. In general, every tropical cyclone is notable enough to exist on Wikipedia, which usually goes into any one of the season articles in the seven basins (plus occasional Medicanes and SATL storms). If a storm has a certain amount of information, it becomes too detailed for the season article, even all the minor flood watches, and other impacts associated with a given storm. Yea, most landfalling storms have enough info for an article. As long as it’s well-written, well-researched, and doesn’t contain trivia, then it passes the general notability criteria, and has enough unique information to split off the content from the season to its own article. The same can’t be said about Tropical Storm Cindy, for example. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly we should start a Cindy hate club ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that there is such a thing as being overly detailed on Wikipedia, right? LOL! That aside, similar issues have been raised on the severe weather project side as well. In that case, we are talking about what level of notability is needed for a tornado outbreak article to be made. Same applies here. I'm not going to condemn the articles for their content, but I do want us to be mindful of making too many articles for storms that did not necessarily have much of an impact. In the case of Harold, I'm neutral. ChessEric 00:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Philippe have its own page?

I think Philippe should have its own page due to the effects in the Caribbean. Unless we only add pages if there’s too much information to add in one paragraph? I saw Harold got a page even though it didn’t do much so I was just wondering… 172.84.241.203 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a Draft:Tropical Storm Philippe (2023). Drdpw (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir 172.84.241.203 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ophelia

I think this system is more notable then Harold so someone should make an article about it 2601:8C:8200:1700:1591:D58C:6A66:D514 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

See Draft:Tropical Storm Ophelia (2023). Drdpw (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 2601:8C:8200:1700:1591:D58C:6A66:D514 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, while I am not 100% sure that it is you, I would like to note that drafts are not be linked in the mainspace. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I just submitted the draft. Especially with Drdpw’s trim, this article now contains important information that cannot be contained in the storm impact section, thus a seperate article is required. Otherwise, the section either has WP:UNDUE weight to the storm, or it is omitting important information. 74.101.92.237 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait to wikilink until it gets published which may take a few days (or months). ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

ok 2601:8C:8200:1700:70C5:D11E:55F9:9E8C (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Not sure what I did when bringing code over from last years season but the bot is still archiving to the first archive past 150,000 bytes. If anyone can fix it, that would be good. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 16:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been fixed. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 10:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Invest 93L

If it develops, will it get an article? 2605:8D80:405:6CF9:6C3B:B25A:46E6:6861 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming the invest becomes a tropical cyclone, it will automatically get a section in this article. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I am asking if it will be notable enough for an article. 2605:8D80:405:6CF9:6C3B:B25A:46E6:6861 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Too soon to tell. For further information on "When can a storm get its own article" see Frequently Asked Questions #2 at the top of this talk page. Drdpw (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well now it has a 0% chance of developing 2601:8C:8200:1700:E19D:D201:13F8:9F19 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Invest 93L remnants impact

Does it deserve a mention as an other system? It never formed but it merged with a front that is currently causing heavy rain and winds in coastal southern US. Will it get a mention or no? 2605:8D80:324:225B:65F0:74CA:42CE:DA9D (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the storm never developed, or got advisories, no, it should not get mentioned in the article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Subtropical storm in North Atlantic

Looks like a short lived subtropical storm is forming in the North Atlantic.

If it is indeed subtropical and not my speculation, would it be mentioned down the line from now as an other system? If the NHC classifies it in the coming weeks and not down the road, will it be named Tammy or unnamed?2605:8D80:403:F125:15EF:4A41:8C67:5ECA (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about the low pressure area that is located south of Cabo Verde? Because, there are no words from the NHC that a "subtropical storm" is forming right now. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 15:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Info on Subtropical Storm “One’s” (90L) lack of a name

Under the storm names category, wouldn’t it be more convenient to include a paragraph explaining why 18 of the 19 storms are named, referring to the fact that the first storm was not given a name due to initial lack of recognition. 209.120.186.66 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Per 2013 and 2011, we do not explain why they were left unnamed in the storm names section. Unnamed is already somewhat explained in the season summary. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is wind shear effecting formation?

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Has wind shear impacted formation at all? Is it the effect of the El Niño? 2605:8D80:403:F125:8047:5244:C631:B2FF (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a general discussion forum. Do you have a specific statement on this subject that you would like to see added to the article? Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Has the El Niño influenced formation in any way without taking into account record water temperates? Because if it is hypothesized to be a less active season based on El Niño, what impacts did it have? Was there more wind shear that impacted early formation? 2605:8D80:402:10A9:1842:BF18:E68E:D432 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens if the auxiliary list gets used?

Will this season be particularly notable? 2605:8D80:403:BD7F:2CAC:1B3C:E1E4:7FF7 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I cannot say if this season will be notable or not. Also, please note that this is not a forum. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 12:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

20 systems have formed. Now can this article mention how this season is strange despite no obvious effects of El Niño?

If 20 systems have formed despite an El Niño, can this article mention how strange and weird and unusual it is? This is a new activity record despite environmental circumstances, now can the article mention in the lede how unusual this is? 2605:8D80:325:2251:64EE:A4C6:297A:23F (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We can only mention it as being "strange" if a reliable source refers to it as such. Do do so based on our own judgement would violate the no original research policy. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Unusual is what I am aiming for here. 20 systems is the fifth most active Atlantic hurricane season, and during an El Niño? That doesn’t add up. Obviously less storms between June and August and the effects were present but now it’s not even like it’s there. So what is the reasons behind the formation record? Definitely not sea surface temperatures. 2605:8D80:325:2251:64EE:A4C6:297A:23F (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Same difference, really. It would still be OR. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Eventually a RS will mention why it was very active but it is very weird for this to happen, so it should be added to the lede on why this is unusual once sources describe it that way and I am sure they will. 2605:8D80:325:2251:64EE:A4C6:297A:23F (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sure they will but it is probably going to be months. Next time you this up, please bring an RS. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 01:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EdereOmnes (article contribs). — Assignment last updated by EdereOmnes (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Tammy draft

Has anyone started on a Tammy draft yet? Its seeming to become more dangerous in NHC reports Insendieum (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

One has not been started (just now searched). If it brushes the islands leaving nothing but a mess to clean up and then moves out to sea, a separate article will likely not be warranted. For now, I would suggest building Tammy's entry in this article first. If the storm causes significant damage and results in casualties, start a draft then. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Will an article eventually be made about the storm? Will it need to be extended-confirmed protected in advanced? 2605:8D80:325:2251:F4F7:A0FE:1B6:2407 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A draft has been started. Drdpw (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please link me to it? Insendieum (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if you found it yet but: Draft:Hurricane Tammy. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 00:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 is already tied as the fourth most active Atlantic hurricane season

Should we wait until December? According to Ontario-based weather news channel The Weather Network along with WPDE-TV (ABC 15 News), this season is currently ranked as the fourth most active hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin.

Maybe somewhere nearby the info box it could be stated that "Due to these abnormal circumstances for an El Niño, it is currently the fourth most active Atlantic hurricane season and is the most active since 2021." after the statement regarding the El Niño. Thank You.

65.97.56.9 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If the remnants of 21 regenerate in the Pacific, will it be mentioned?

Would they count as the same or separate systems and would it be mentioned despite them being in two different basins? 2605:8D80:404:9D6:CC8E:5FD2:87EC:EE54 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

They will most likely be two separate systems since the NHC explicitly mentioned that TD 21 is only part of it. Probably won't be mentioned since it wouldn't be a direct regeneration. Noah, AA^Talk 12:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, like we have Hurricane Agatha last year that indirectly regenrated into Alex 69.211.218.207 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Amanda and Cristobal and how it was mentioned in their respective season articles, yes. Now, I would make sure if the NHC states they are dustinct to mention that, such as the following from Amanda's section: "The remnants of the system moved northward into the Bay of Campeche and redeveloped into the Atlantic's Tropical Storm Cristobal." Just be careful to follow the terminology the NHC uses. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the NHC, the broad area of low pressure now over the eastern Pacific is only partially related to the remnants of TD21; therefore the pertinent season articles are: Hurricane Agatha and Tropical Storm Alex (2022), not Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. Drdpw (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Tammy active or not?

Would Tammy still be considered active as an extratropical storm, or not? It's still being monitored and has a high chance for direct regeneration zoey (trooncel) 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See how Tropical Storm Gert is treated in the article to get an idea of how Tammy will be if it regenerates. See Tropical Storm Emily and Hurricane Earl for examples of how Tammy will be treated if it does not. Drdpw (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It literally regenerated back into a storm today. So include that it is active. 2605:8D80:407:37F9:50EC:53DB:4928:5437 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EdereOmnes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anubhutij28 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This season has technically 22 storms, 21 tropical or subtropical storms.

If we include the unnamed subtropical storm that formed on October 12, will this be the fifth or fourth most active season? 2605:8D80:406:859D:64CB:499F:81B7:3126 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Unnamed tropical storm was counted as one, the current numbers are correct. If we were to classify it as a most active season, it'd be tied for 4th. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there has been no confirmation that a subtropical storm on October 12. The season as it stands has 21 named storms, including the unnamed subtropical storm in January. Gum balls 678 talk 21:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, it is OR but one barely formed for a day in the North Atlantic. It will be announced in post-season reanalysis. 2605:8D80:404:4CEE:D560:2380:1CBA:E22B (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If and when that happens the article will address it, but not until. Drdpw (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Storms in the Caribbean and Gulf

Is it worth noting that most of the storms have developed or spent most their lifetimes in the Atlantic Ocean. Only like six have existed in the Caribbean or Gulf, of which five developed there and one (Idalia) became a hurricane. 35.130.105.90 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding this information to the article would be WP:OR without a reliable source noting this. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t the track map reliable enough? 35.130.105.90 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, not a reliable secondary source Drdpw (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, check out the 1982 season, when there were no storms in the Carib. All of the storms in the eastern Caribbean means that it’s not worth mentioning a lack of Carib storms. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tammy impacts

Tammy's article currently has a few paragraphs of information for preparations and impacts while the season article only has three sentences. I feel like a sentence on Guadeloupe would be appropriate based on it having its own section in the Tammy article. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)