Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Julia (2022)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should we rename this?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I am taking the liberty of closing this discussion thread as the related "Requested move 12 October 2022" discussion has been closed. The result of that move request was: No consensus. Drdpw (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Julia has been renamed to Hurricane Julia (2010), and this is more notable than 2010's Julia. Should we rename this Hurricane Julia? FilbertKaiserRoll (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is another Hurricane Julia, we should not rename to just Hurricane Julia unless Julia (the 2022 storm) is the storm that retires the name. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elijahandskip, Unless this turns out to be the storm that retires the the name the article title ought to remain as it is. Drdpw (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be renamed to Hurricane Julia because of the deaths and impacts because the 2010 one did little to no impacts. PopularGames (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not how that works. Since there is another Hurricane Julia, we must keep it the way it is now until the 2022 storm is the storm to retire the name Julia. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But once spring rolls around and we get an official list of which names get retired, Julia article is probably gonna have to get renamed to just Hurricane Julia considering that the death toll alone makes it a likely retirement. Charzuchi (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more notable now but will it be in the long term? I wouldn't move it unless there is a retirement case. It's not a sure-fire retirement like Ian was anyway. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 one didn't really impact anything, but it should be considered that it is the easternmost Category 4 Atlantic hurricane. Cabociano (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and apologize me. But I think all of you have the same US-centrism as the NHC did with it's feedbacks on Facebook about this storm. Nothing, nothing and nothing was reported from that and you are doing the same, minimizing the damage that hurricane did in our country and elsewhere in Latin America. Look Trinidad, the landslide in Venezuela, flash flooding in Nicaragua including the capital where I live (the hospital where I work flooded as well). Three military died in El Salvador. Deaths in Honduras and Guatemala. Flooding in Mexico's Acapulco because of its remnants and TS Karl. Just only did not impact USA, it's not important to the community and has the same significance with 2010's Julia. You renamed Ian and Fiona as the important, but Julia? Nothing. As a proud old and retired member of this superb wikiproject, I know what I'm writing. Cyclones involve everybody not only US and Canada. Do not forget us. Latin Americans. And note, this is not sentimentalism of abandonment or things like that. It's just being fair. Regards. ✠ Byralaal (+505-chat-toMe) 05:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byralaal: Your logic is flawed for Ian and Fiona. Prior to both of those storms, there was no previous “Hurricane Fiona” or “Hurricane Ian”. Both names had only been used by Tropical Storms in the past, so there was no reason for the year to be included. For Julia, we have Hurricane Julia (2010), so the year MUST be kept unless the name is retired, which at that point, it can receive the Hurricane Julia status. Same thing with Hurricane Katrina. There was Hurricane Katrina (1981), but since the 2005 storm was the one to retire the name, it got the main title without the year. No US bias with that, just straight, Wikipedia guidelines and logic. If there was a previous “Hurricane Ian” I would have been strongly opposed to giving it the Hurricane Ian article name unless the name was retired. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Elijahandskip, the distinction between the cited examples ("Hurricane Fiona" & "Hurricane Ian") were not previous used as names for hurricanes and unless a name is retired, the article should not be renamed. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that the name "Hurricane Julia (2022)" should be retained. While this hurricane is arguably more important than the previous hurricane of the same name, older hurricanes shouldn't be unmentioned just because they weren't as severe; it wouldn't be fair to those who died in said hurricane. Coolman2917 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After further examination nobody actually died in past Julia, please disregard this comment. Apologies Coolman2917 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hurricane Julia and Tropical Storm Karl.

[edit]

Did Julia’s remnants contribute to the formation of Tropical Storm Karl? TheEasternEditer (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia might have energized the area of disturbed weather from which Karl developed, I am not a meteorologist however. According to Yale Climate Connection: An area of disturbed weather, positioned at the north end of a broad envelope of spin and moisture that had surrounded former Hurricane Julia, has now become Tropical Storm Karl. Drdpw (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

result:
No consensus. Closure requested <permalink>. See below no agreement to either keep the current title or to rename to the proposed title. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a name change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Julia (2022) → Hurricane Julia – This is now clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the storm turned devastating. HurricaneEdgar 05:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Per my comments to Byralaal above in the Should we rename this? section. Wait until the name is retired (if it is retired). Elijahandskip (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article HurricaneEdgar 08:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The storm has made over >78 deaths, while 2010 incarnation has only minimal damage. I think when people thought of Hurricane Julia in the future they may only think about 2022 Julia. Thingofme (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the final totals for the deaths and damage have been confirmed. Would have said oppose and wait until Julia 2022 gets retired but there have been several instances in which a particular storm was deadly but its name was not retired (see Tropical Storm Matthew (2010) (although another Matthew would have it retired), Hurricane Earl (2016), Hurricane Hanna (2008), and the similarly southern-tracking Tropical Storm Bret (1993) which also caused havoc in Venezuela). Then again, there's the articles for Hurricanes Gert and Gordon, which were still moved to their present titles despite not being retired after their respective seasons for they were more notable than any other storms of the same name (including the ones from 1999 and 2006). Vida0007 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Retirements are not required in order to enact wikipedia policy on primary topic. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so we could care less about the simple process of retirement. Is this storm far more notable than any other incarnation of Hurricane Julia. The answer to that is yes. The process of waiting until retirement for a storm to get the main title isn't one that should be continued, especially since a storm that wasn't retired may be equally or more notable than the one that was.
NoahTalk 12:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard support: Julia needs to be retired similar to Diana, Cesar, Eta, Joan or Iota. Wikipedia should reflect when Julia is retired in spring or summer 2023. This should be moved to just Hurricane Julia without the year’s name in parentheses. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 19:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Julia from this year has severely affected many areas before and after its crossover, especially Venezuela as it has the highest fatality total from the storm. FilbertKaiserRoll (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Elijahandskip's comment. Dede2008 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per HurricaneEdgar's, Thingofme's, and Noah's comment Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppsose It is too soon to see if it will be retired. Felicia (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of if Julia is retired or not, out of its three Atlantic uses this one is definitely most notable. If this Julia isnt retired and at some point down the line, another Julia causes more severe damage, we can always add the year back. Undescribed (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It doesn't really seem like retirements have been the policy for whether a storm should have a year in its name or not. Like Vida0007 said, Hurricane Gert and Hurricane Gordon both weren't retired and yet don't have a year, and I can think of another, bigger exception: Hurricane Klaus (1990), which was retired but still has a year in its name. Looking at the damages and impacts from these exceptions, it looks a lot more like they were based off of significance than retirement status. On top of that, as a point in favor of 2022's Julia, I will point out that on both Bing and Google if you just search "hurricane julia" the result you get for the Wikipedia is the 2010 storm, which probably isn't helpful for those looking for the most significant version of Julia, the one that at this point has at least 75 confirmed deaths. I'm not a Google engineer and I don't pretend to be, but I think dropping the year would let people access the relevant information more easily. Lastly, if Julia doesn't get retired and there's some more deadly/damaging incarnation years later, there is always the option of moving the page back here. For now though, I don't exactly see a point in keeping it where it is just because it hasn't been retired yet. WhittleMario (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why that is. A discussion should be started on that since it was THE storm of that name. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the talk page, a discussion was started on that, last month actually. The result was a unanimous vote to not move it since it didn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC due the 1984 version of the storm. WhittleMario (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I let conversations go sometimes. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After giving this some thought, I've come to the conclusion that, when an article for the most recent named hurricane, tropical storm, typhoon or cyclone of any name is created, that article should be created without a differentiating year; the (xxxx) should be added to the article later, down the road if and when the name is used again. Drdpw (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Wait until death counts are officially confirmed and we have a number for monetary damages. It's a pretty impactful storm and a likely retirement anyways. But for now it's a little too soon to rename to just Hurricane Julia Charzuchi (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 50/50 chance that Julia will be retired. For example, Gordon in 1994 killed over one thousand people and wasn't retired because at the WMO summit the individuals there decided Haiti's infastructure was to blame and not the storm itself. I support the "wait" idea because of the 50/50 odds. Daniel J. Clark (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t matter too much. Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) killed 52 direct, 50 indirect, and at least 100 presumed dead. It did not take on the Tropical Storm Hermine name, despite being much much more notable than Tropical Storm Hermine (2022). Elijahandskip (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hermine in 2010? Hmmm... Yes, it really doesn't. Sarrail (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for discussion, Sarrail changed their support to the current oppose in this edit. Just making the note since the original comment was not struck but instead changed and the reply comments seem weird. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Same goes for Hurricane Hanna (2008). 2) Yeah, I was thinking of strikethroughing my text. Sarrail (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to cite Hermine and Hanna, I'd also like to point out Gordon and Gert. Neither were retired, but they both dropped the year from their names. And also, retirement isn't even necessarily a sign that the storm should drop its year. Klaus is a great example, and of course nobody is clamoring for Knut or Adele in the EPAC to even get articles. There's a lot of inconsistencies with doing this based on retirement. WhittleMario (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Julia is not as deadly as either one of those storm. This is a typical Central American storm. I don't see why we should remove the year. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 1985’s Juan (although it was retired after 2003), 2005’s Emily, 2010’s Karl, 2012’s Issac, 2019’s Imelda, and 2020’s Isaias and Sally weren’t retired following their seasons. DENBRO1995 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, however if Julia is retired later this year or next year, then Support InvadingInvader (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdphiladelphia this isn't a support, this is an oppose-for-now Amyipdev (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but add a banner at the top directing to the other Julias. Mitch199811 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eni2dad There is some storm, not being retired, may be enough of a primary topic, they are highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic. HurricaneEdgar 07:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As per Undiscribed's reasons. Julius008 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The effects of the current Hurricane Julia are significant whether the name will be retired or not. People aren't going to think of the 2010 hurricane when they hear Hurricane Julia. And like Drdpw said, the year can always be added back if a more significant Hurricane Julia takes place in the future. Fantasystic (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not, but we don't know for certain yet how long this hurricane will be covered and remembered for; like was said before, "this is a pretty typical South American storm".
    If it becomes significant enough in after-effects to actually get retired, then sure, but the fact that the others were significant enough to have Wikipedia articles makes me think for now to oppose. Amyipdev (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but I am still not totally convinced that we need to wait for retirement. What with the amount of people dead and/or missing, I don't really know why Julia wouldn't be retired. Hurricanes with lower death tolls have been retired. Additionally, non-retired hurricanes in the past have been moved. My thinking is that waiting for a retirement is redundant if it's going to be retired anyway. Fantasystic (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It just seems highly unlikely that a storm with possibly 100+ deaths doesn't get retired unless the nations impacted son't send representatives to the 45th session of the RAIV hurricane committee (like Gordon for Haiti). Poxy4 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not wait until retirement then? Amyipdev (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's already definitely going to get retired. In the case it doesn't get retired, and another, more significant Hurricane Julia comes around, we can always add the (2022) back again. Poxy4 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Poxy4 that just feels unnecessary, what's the issue with waiting for the retirement? Amyipdev (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Poxy4 & Amyipdev death tolls do not always indicate retirement. Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) killed 102 (direct + indirect) and at least 100 presumed dead. Only Mexico and the US were impacted. Obviously, Tropical Storm Hermine (2022) also occurred and received an article. So no, it is not "unnecessary to wait for retirement". Keeping the year in the title is just standard practices on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elijahandskip fully agree with you here. Amyipdev (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Would be unnecessary to remove the date considering there is three other tropical cyclone articles with the same name. Waiting until the fatalities and damages are confirmed would be more appropriate because of its notoriety. DuckBeaks (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are at the point where the effective consensus has become "don't move for now, if it gets retired then move it." Is there any concurrence with this? Amyipdev (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I agree that the current news supports that the name will be retired for Hurricane Julia. Given the number of deaths reported in South America and its devastating effects on many countries. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this Hurricane Julia is most likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; for instance, the govt of Nicaragua alone is reporting $300m+ in damages right now (much more than the other Julias). The idea of using retirement to gauge primary topic is silly because the people who name hurricanes most likely set a high bar for retirement (since it will be the last and most significant one of that name). It does not retire based upon the hurricane merely being the more important and talked about hurricane (even with considering recentism, I still think this article likely will endure as the most significant one unless another storm should be more significant several years into the future). I would also be ok with Hurricane Julia redirecting to this article and leaving the year in the title. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of inconsistencies with how different tropical cyclone articles are named to where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems to not really be a viable reason to support or deny it. During this discussion, I actually went back and found some of the original edits on Hurricane Katrina, when the article was called Hurricane Katrina (2005). One such editor, Cyrius, is not really active on editing anymore, but even then, during a renaming discussion to be just Hurricane Katrina, the comment was Wait for it, there's no rush.[1] Yes, even Hurricane Katrina, one of the most infamous hurricanes in history, that even started as Hurricane Katrina (2005). I do not get why people want to rush the renaming process. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any apparent inconsistency as a reason to eschew primary topic considerations. (For the Hurricane Katrina example, it was moved relatively quickly--within 24 hours of creation--and considerably before folks knew about its impact in Louisiana.) As for rushing into the renaming, I'd probably agree that the renaming of the article isn't very urgent. However, I don't see what's gained by waiting, and this discussion is already taking place. It's clearly affected countries magnitudes more than the other Julia (likely to be more significant than it long-term), is clearly more used right now, and shouldn't specifically wait for a retirement decision per my comment above. Danre98 (alt) (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danre98 (alt) perhaps, but with Katrina, the retirement was pretty certain because of the magnitude of the devastation. it's likely but not a guarantee that this storm will be retired. also, unlike Katrina, it's unlikely that this storm will keep continuing to be brought up - at least in its current state - for decades to come. perhaps a redirect for now would be appropriate but a move is premature and not yet necessary Amyipdev (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true for Katrina, but it was still moved quite quickly (and isn't a great parallel anyway). It's not as if they waited a week or two to move it back in 2005. I agree that it probably will not compare with Katrina and be talked about for decades to come, but what matters is its relative occurrence (in usage) with other storms of the same name. I also don't care for retirement because not retired != not primary topic. Anyway, perhaps the redirect is more appropriate (I don't have an opinion on that). Danre98 (alt) (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danre98 (alt) I somewhat agree, but the usage of retirement is as a benchmark for *when* it should be moved, since moving is not of paramount importance. Amyipdev (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, it's not a good idea to wait for retirement specifically. However, like many other events, reevaluation of naming a year or more after Julia is probably a good idea. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip yeah it doesn't really make sense, we can redirect for now - most people looking for information aren't going to be misled by articles clearly stating long past years Amyipdev (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip The fact that this project is inconsistently applying guidelines is the problem. This is not an excuse to make a guideline, which is superior to any consensus or practice at WPWX since it reflect the will of the entire community as a whole, essentially null and void for all sides of argument. Sorry to be blunt, but it's high time this project follow editing policies and guidelines instead of doing whatever the hell it wants. Wikipedia does NOT wait around for bureaucratic procedures such as storm retirements. The issue here is which incarnation of Julia is the most notable. Of the two Hurricane Julia's, which storm is more notable? The one that did minimal damage and killed nobody? Or the one that killed several dozen and did hundreds of millions in damage? Looking at page views prior to Julia '22, it's quite clear that few care about the 2010 storm. The page views were almost always less than 10 per day and jumped up to hundreds only after Julia '22 came about. Julia '10 did not have much lasting effect because the damage was minimal and nobody died whereas this storm will have years of lasting effect. We are required to look at wikipedia policy and guidelines when making these sorts of decisions, not project practice or inconsistencies in the practice which goes against these policies and guidelines. NoahTalk 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah what about the case where there are only dated storm pages? in that case it doesn't matter if one is more important than the other, if the threshold for a move has not been reached yet - whatever that threshold is - the move isn't going to happen purely because "one is more important than the other". Amyipdev (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold is you have to establish that a primary topic exists. Which means the topic must be significantly more notable than all other storms of the same naming format. In this case there are two hurricane incarnations which makes it easier. If Storm A killed 80 and did 200M in damage and storm B killed 95 and did 300M in damage, there would not be a primary topic. In this case, we have a storm that killed nobody and did minimal damage compared to one that killed at least 80 and did 300M+ in damage. It's quite clear which is the primary topic. NoahTalk 18:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah both of the WP sources you mentioned aren't relevant here though. WP might not be a bureaucracy but there's nothing against waiting for a *reasonable benchmark* to perform a move, and setting up a redirect + "you may have meant to" on the other pages. also, if the other ones weren't notable, they wouldn't have their own pages to begin with. Amyipdev (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Storm retirement isn't a reasonable benchmark. There have been cases where an incarnation of a storm was not retired despite its impact and was more notable than the incarnation that was retired. I don't know specific names since I didn't participate in those moves, but it has happened in the Western Pacific Ocean before. Some countries have histories of not requesting retirements. There's a difference between being significantly less notable and not notable at all. NoahTalk 18:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah then should it not be retired, a new discussion can be launched. is the move really so urgent? if anything the longer period gives time to cool off Amyipdev (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering we are here, why should we force people to wait and then waste even more time in the future discussing the same thing again? NoahTalk 18:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah because this discussion shouldn't have even need to have happened in the first place, waiting to see what happens should be the natural result. no need to rush into decisions Amyipdev (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing goes the other way around; what if we change the name and then later have to come back and waste time discussing whether we need to change it back? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, given how overwhelmingly this hurricane is the primary topic, this scenario is far, far less likely. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This storm is not getting retired though unless the death toll skyrockets; its only 91, which for a storm like this is not unusual. I just don't believe a storm like this is enough of a primary topic. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't the discussion after the cooling off of recentism happen while the article is then-designated as the primary topic? Given the overwhelming likelihood of this Julia having enduring significance and because this discussion is already ongoing, it makes most sense to do it now. If an action is the best one, why wait to do it? Besides, readers will have the benefit of being quickly directed to the Julia that they are probably looking for sooner than they would otherwise. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we can presume that most users are reasonable enough to, if they _somehow_ end up on the wrong page, click a *one-button* redirect to the 2022 page? Amyipdev (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly they can, but it is a non-negligible reason to not wait (i.e. benefit of having correct primary topic sooner). I know I appreciate it when I get redirected (or pointed) to the article I'm looking for, even if it just saves a few seconds for me. In addition, this is only a supporting point for me. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Seems a bit WP:TOOSOON, it's obviously the most notable "Hurricane Julia", though we should see how long-term notability plays out first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecafPotato (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are examples of a non-retired hurricane name having the title without the year while there have been other storms of the same name, however I don't understand how the current title is actually problematic. 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:A0D3:E7ED:FB63:C6AE (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "However i don't understand how the current title is actually problematic" The current title isn't really problematic, BUT it would be better without the (2022) in front of it. Cyclonicpot (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it be better? It (the year) does provide *some* clarity for now, and I don't see any benefits from not having the year. Amyipdev (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Noah and others. Regardless of name retirement, this hurricane is clearly the most notable incarnation of Julia up until now, and should therefore have the year removed from its title. CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I do not plan to change my vote, something that I will note is that Hurricane Julia is somewhat unusual in that it affected Central America from both the Atlantic AND Eastern Pacific basins. This was because of the fact that Julia's northwestward curve occurred so close to the coast once it entered the Pacific. Additionally, from the info I gathered, this was only the fourth or fifth tropical cyclone (I can't tell if Tropical Storm Miriam made landfall or not) to make landfall in Central America from both the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific basins. The fact that it significantly impacted the area from both basins does argue for the year to be removed from the title. At the moment, I'm still leaning oppose, but I am reconsidering my stance. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-closure commentary

[edit]

@Paine Ellsworth: What exactly was your rationale for deciding there was no consensus? I'm just asking since it seems to be absent from the closure summary at the top, which simply states there wasn't a consensus either way. There appears to be a very similar number of people on both sides of this, so were the policy-based arguments on both sides of this equal in strength? NoahTalk 17:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found both opposition and support to be lucid and convincing, yes. Try to be concise, succinct in closing statements, because a) find it less likely that someone would accuse me of super!voting, and b) some things don't usually need to be said (unless asked, of course). Thank you for your inquiry and your interest! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: If the user is wrong, it's closure may go through. (WP:Move review) HurricaneEdgar 01:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Venezuela from unreliable source

[edit]

The article referenced for the number of death in Venezuela (https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/update-death-toll-from-floods-landslide-in-1576900.html) is from a Sputnik (news agency) via UrduPoint News, a notorious Russian unreliable source. Either the number should come back to 37 with the previous source or a more reliable source should be found for the 43 death. Pierre cb (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – per wikipedia:SPUTNIK. Drdpw. I have found a reliable source stating 43 dead. Drdpw (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Julia_(2022)&oldid=1211227167"