Talk:2021 Atlantic hurricane season

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

Mindy article

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 ([[User talk: 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)

Sam peak intensity

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.
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

I can't make changes to Tropical Storm Peter. Can I edit? Kangsea0 (talk) 19:53, 27 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)