Talk:2021 Atlantic hurricane season

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)

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)

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)

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.

Copied

PlanetsForLife 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Which image of Sam we should use

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)

• @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)

• 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)

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)