Jump to content

Talk:Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doge1941 (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 3 March 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not really needed

@Chicdat: Why does this need an article? It’s completely unnecessary. The storm has barely done anything to land and fits in the season article well enough. There have been plenty of landfalling EPAC storms that do not have nor need articles. Also, I’d recommend you make a draft before you make a incomplete article, especially before you provide several links to it on a page. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23 and Chicdat: since the article is presently very incomplete and impact information is unlikely to be found at this moment, I'm moving this to a draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Amanda (2020), after which it should be moved back if more details e.g. death/damage statistics turn up in the forthcoming days (though hopefully not) and the draft is expanded accordingly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricaneboy23, Chicdat, and KN2731: I think the draft is fine, though it needs a lot more information. Amanda has already "turned deadly" (from Accuweather) and has dumped several feet of rain on Central America. If Bertha had enough impact to be turned into an article, Amanda does.Destroyeraa (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the reports of fatalities coming in this is certainly expandable now. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Please expand the lead! --🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 09:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a records section?

Cristobal broke some records but I'm not sure if it's enough for a record section. It's your choice if you guys want to add some records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.19.58 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An entire section isn't necessary, only two significant records have been set. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthest west, etc

Some records have already been set, with the usual caveat of "within recorded history". If Cristobal remains a defined tropical depression on Wednesday, it will be the first time a tropical system has ever reached Lake Superior -- something we should definitely make note of. Additionally, Cristobal's merging with the incoming cold front will result in a more intense storm than made landfall on Louisiana -- and will still have tropical characteristics. In particular, the NOAA, per https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day2otlk.html , indicates that the immediate region around the lower Great Lakes (lower Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and to a lesser extent Lake Ontario) will be hardest hit, with a chance of tornadoes. (Southeast quadrant, plus the sharp incoming front, plus arctic air pulled down by Cristobal on the flip side -- aka what meteorologists call "fascinating".) Slight tropical characteristics notwithstanding, that part will probably belong in the usual post-tropical section. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissipation

I don't want to make prospective but the extratropical low left from Cristobal is still active, even deepening. All models moves it to James Bay and then Labrador Sea where it is forecasted to dissipate. So I don't think the "Dissipation Time" should be June 10.

Pierre cb (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was June 10. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 09:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre cb: The dissipation is for the tropical part of the system only. Even though the extratropical/post-tropical stage of the system is still active and intensifying, the tropical part dissipated on June 10. Destroyeraa 16:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the article for hurricane hazel has its dissipation date for the extratropical remnants' absorbtion. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WPC was still tracking the original circulation until at least the 11th at 09Z. This will be adjusted once the TCR is released. [1] Supportstorm (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Remnant's Squall line and derecho

I wonder if or if not the squall line associated with the remnants or Cristobal should be included in the impacts section of the article. Several sources [2] and [3] state that the derecho and squall line were part of Cristobal's remnants. Destroyeraa 20:04, 11 June 2020

Destroyer, Recognizing that although the mentioned line of thunderstorms was not in actuality part of T.D. Cristobal, this line of storms was fueled by its interaction with Cristobal, I have restored (with a little tweaking) the paragraph that I previously reverted out. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DrdpwThanks. Stay safe. Destroyeraa 0:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Tornado section

Added a dedicated tornado summary section, since there certainly seem to have been enough linked tornadoes (Florida 11, southern Ontario 7, plus Ohio and Pennsylvania tornadoes). See spinoff discussion above, southern Ontario tornadoes not technically part of derecho but definitely fed by Cristobal. Any tornadoes found in northern Ontario on June 10 would be directly part of extratropical Cristobal, but none found yet and unlikely that any will be. So far, the strongest seems to be two F2s in Ontario and Pennsylvania. ( I have mostly finished the Ontario storms (but could be expanded), working on Florida storms now. (FU total is tentative to preserve accurate total, until I track each one down.) - Tenebris

WikiMacaroons, two editors agree that this section is not tangential. Additionally, this is a section included with most high-tornado tropical system pages. I suggest you discuss here before reverting again. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious -- the tornadoes dropped by Cristobal definitely number among the higher totals dropped by a tropical system, especially when considering it never reached hurricane status. On average, only about 10% of tropical systems drop more than 20 tornadoes, with the majority of those systems being violent hurricanes. For example, Hurricane Katrina dropped 57 documented tornadoes, about half of which were F0s, and none of which were stronger than an F2. (Most tornado-dropping hurricanes of comparable strength do drop at least an EF3 equivalent.) For tropical storms, such a high number of associated tornadoes is extremely rare. Cristobal is nowhere near name retirement level, but the sheer number of associated tornadoes definitely makes it notable. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want consensus before posting, Drdpw -- why have you not posted to this part of the talk page? Also, not all the reverts are mine. Check the history. This will be my second revert of you -- but if you undo again, it will be your third of me. I am not the one on thin ice here. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I don't get too involved here, I will simply make the following points, and then see how others feel about it. Btw Drdpw -- one person is not a consensus. Not you. Not me. At the moment, based on the edit history alone, two people feel one way and two people feel the opposite way.
(1) As mentioned previously, only about 10% of all tropical systems have more than 20 associated tornadoes. Most of those are violent hurricanes. Extremely few are tropical storms.
(2) On WP, previous tropical systems with this number of tornadoes usually have a dedicated tornado section, and sometimes a separate tornado page. Making the list is thus entirely appropriate to the relative weight of the information.
(3) The Cristobal-intensified storm system over the Midwest into Pennsylvania was actually more intense (by air pressure) than Cristobal was at landfall. (All the EF2 tornadoes happened in Ontario (Canada) and Pennsylvania -- three are currently documented, so about 15% of documented tornadoes.) Consensus over including the associated derecho was already achieved above.
So, let's see what true consensus has in store. For restoration purposes, the most recent version of the table is at [4]. Until this is resolved, there is no point in further updating the table (I had been working on the Orlando data) -- but considering that the number of editors who have acted on this is currently equal on both sides, it would be courteous to leave the table in place, as a solid piece of referenced work, until that consensus is resolved. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I and at least one other editor have reverted your addition of a tornado table to the article on the grounds that a separate table is not needed. You have, three times now this afternoon, reverted those reverts. I am opposed to adding the table you insist on including. It is unnecessary and gives undue weight to this one aspect of Cristobal’s impact. As I do not wish to join you in violating the 3R policy I will not remove the table again. If others revert/disagree-with its inclusion, I hope you will listen collaboratively. Drdpw (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, I and at least one other editor (WikiMacaroons) restored the section. That makes two and two. Also: you reverted me twice, I reverted you twice. Neither of us are in R3R, so neither of us have as yet violated the 3R policy. (I did revert one other editor ... once. That makes a grand *total* of three reverts: two with you, one with another editor. Again, not R3R, let alone the "thin ice"/"multiple re-reverts" you threatened me with in the edit comments.) I have already said I won't touch that table again until others speak up here ... but I can't help but notice that you completely ignored every point I wrote here. Listening collaboratively begins with reading and addressing what others write. (I won't say anything about respecting the work of others. This is WP, after all.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebris- can you show me a page or pages on WP about a tropical storm that has a tornado chart? If you insist on a tornado chart, why not create a new page? In addition, the tornadoes associated with Cristobal were two separate events, one was the storm itself in Florida, the other was with a cold front that caused a derecho. So, it will be hard to create a page or section on all of the tornadoes, maybe create a draft about the derecho, since that was the more impactful event. Destroyeraa (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to hear this request, since this has already been covered. I gave the requested links above. The mention of the linked cold front and derecho was discussed earlier on this talk page, completely independently of me, and consensus was reached that it was relevant to this article. However, I will repeat that normally only hurricanes have this number of linked tornadoes, and those do have tornado charts, eg. Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak, Hurricane Rita (Impact - link to separate dedicated page). You won't find a page such as this for any tropical storm, precisely because tropical storms don't normally have anywhere near this number of tornadoes. Thus, ironically, the very thing that makes it noteworthy (the sheer number of linked tornadoes for a tropical storm) will also not have a specifically tropical storm precedent for precisely that reason. Btw, in the text, nearly all of the tornadoes I tracked were removed. There were more than 20 documented and referenced tornadoes -- and no mention of this number is made in the text either. Given the initial reaction and the fact that only one other person spoke up at all, there is still no point in my being WP:BOLD and adding them back. Objectively, the tornadoes are both relevant and noteworthy -- but if determined others don't agree, that way lies edit wars. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Cristobal and Amanda?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Flood article for Amanda-Cristobal situation? about combining Cristobal and Amanda's articles into a single flood article. If you have an opinion please comment there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. 2003 LN6 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and merged both articles, given the clear consensus to do so. The discussion ended in favor of a merger nearly a month ago. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even a article?

Simply what the title is. Whats the need? It is not official in any way and shouldn't be treated as such. NHC doesn't say Amanda-Cristoba. You shpould display what officals say and not what you guys say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.104.121 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. They were clearly the same storm. The NHC has a stupid policy where a crossover storm WILL be given a new name and treated as a separate storm if it didn't make the crossover as a tropical cyclone. As Wikipedia editors, we are not bound to follow the policies or the dictates of anyone else. And I do not think we should follow this stupid policy either. Whether or not it is official doesn't matter at all. What matters are the facts, and the NHC's TCR on Cristobal makes it abundantly clear that they were in fact the same storm. And I don't think you should be ordering us around, either. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:LightandDark2000: First off, the center of Amanda dissipated. If the center survived the cross-over, it would be considered the same storm, but this is a different storm formed from remnants; Amanda's remnants are considered a disturbance since they entered a different basin, and therefore not a regeneration. And it is not up to us to decide what policies are stupid or not. This article is a direct violation of using reliable sources, by a GOVERNMENT website. I strongly suggest Amanda and Cristobal be re-divided. Alma and Arthur's articles are like this from 2008. Otto was the same storm that survived the crossover. But this situation is completely different. (And just to be clear, we are bound to follow policies and rules that are outlined by our sources; its the foundation of tropical cyclone editing). JoeMT615 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make a clear standard regarding crossover storms

I strongly suggest for WPTC to make an article/list about crossover systems and make a clear guideline about how you will merge the articles & how to verify & how to count them in seasonal totals (like Tropical Cyclones in 2020 - we should count them as 2 systems for totals in my opinion), etc if so, you can ask/contact NHC if they think the system is fit to the criteria, and it would get less controversial at least (also ask if ATCF RL data can be officially used) in my opinion. Although this is just one system, there will be plenty of other systems which all have different sources and different types of wordings which can be confusing to differentiate. As Wikipedia isn't the official source for the tropical cyclones compared to RSMC and other agencies, I think we need a way to clarify and provide better sources. For that, we will need clear guideline regarding crossover systems, perhaps different ways to verify depending on what RSMC we can contact. For this, I think we would need a list (or article) that contains all systems that Wiki has considered as same systems without clear evidence that they were entirely same system (I'm saying we can exclude cyclones that were named differently just by crossing the basin, like a long time ago). How do you all think about this? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will not follow the NHC's naming protocol. Our policy it to go by the facts, not procedures. If a storm made it into another basin, we will treat it as one storm, regardless of how the NHC chooses to deal with it. They have a stupid protocol that any storm that crosses over from one basin into another must be given a different name and must be treated as a different storm, UNLESS it made the crossover as a tropical cyclone, even if they were clearly the same storm. I don't think we should let other people govern how we do things on WP, especially not when they're bound by ridiculous polices like this one. We do not take orders from the NHC or NWS, or anyone else, in fact. I personally feel that all storms that survived a crossover and regenerated should be merged, including mid-level circulation regenerations. However, I think that WPTC policy is to give crossover storms the same article only if the low-pressure area and/or the low-level circulation center survives (unless I'm missing something here). And in the case of Amanda–Cristobal, the low-pressure area (AND the mid-level circulation) survived intact, which is why we gave the storm one article for both of its incarnations. It is actually very similar to the case of Tropical Storm Hermine (2010), which also has one article. And if we need to merge more articles for the sake of consistency, then so be it. The article merger is done will probably not be reversed, and I think that we should move on instead of wasting time in more pointless discussions. However, I'm open to the idea of creating a list article for every crossover storm out there, and I do agree that clearly defining our policy on crossover storms would be beneficial going forward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 Well, Amanda's TCR do state that, "After landfall, Amanda moved northward across Guatemala, and its center dissipated before 1800 UTC 31 May over the mountainous terrain of the country." And this case differs that of from Hermine by the fact that NHC directly state that 11E's low-level circulation survived the crossover, backed-up by the fact that the last point on 11E's best track data has the exact same position and time of Hermine's first, meanwhile between Amanda and Cristobal there's an whole day whitout best track data between them. ABC paulista (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 I'm not opposing to merge of this article, and since you pointed out that what we interpret is important, I understand more now. Though, I was starting discussion because since we can only use facts from official agencies, right? For Atlantic & Eastern Pacific crossover, we have TCR. (Although sometimes there could be a situation when TCR may be confusing to tell if it was the same system, but that is what to discuss when that kind of situation is noted) However, take Western Pacific / North Indian crossovers. This time, it would be way harder to get facts from officials that it was the same system, even though we could think it was a same system. That was kind of why I suggested why we need a clear guideline and way to verify it time to time. You have stated kind of good guideline (low-pressure area / low-level circulation / mid-level circulation surviving) and how to verify it for NHC-monitored systems (TCR (or maybe operational discussions, etc too?)- although sometimes it may be tricky). So, you already have answered a lot of what I asked. Anyway, I hope this helped to state my thoughts. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2021

Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal → 2020 Central America and Mexico floods – While I personally believe that Amanda and Cristobal are the same system, it is OR for us to say they are when the NHC considers them different. Interpreting whether or not a TCR says they are the same storm is OR. I think we should keep the related impact for this event together, but Cristobal should be its own article with its US impact. NoahTalk 19:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, since there's no clear indication that NHC treats them as the same storm, then focusing on the damage instead of directly stating that they are the same tinhg is the best course of action for now. ABC paulista (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose (for the article split) – Per the previous consensus to merge (and the rationales given for doing so). The two storms are very clearly one and the same, given the TCR reports on the storm; Amanda's low-pressure area (LPA) & mid-level circulation centers both survived the trip overland and regenerated into Cristobal in the Atlantic, even though the low-level circulation center (LLCC) didn't make it. Our current practice is to give crossover storms that were regenerations from either the LPA or the LLCC the same article, regardless of how the NHC names them. And by this metric alone, Amanda/Cristobal warrant having a single article. I think that we should call it as it is and treat these storms as one when the facts back it up, not follow some (ridiculous) NHC naming protocol that any storm that crosses basins MUST be given a new name and treated as the same storm, unless the storm made the crossover as a tropical depression or a stronger tropical cyclone. By this logic, we should split up Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) and all other similar crossover cases as well. As Wikipedia editors, we are not obligated to follow every single opinion of other agencies to the letter, not the NHC, not the NWS, and not anyone else. And I don't think that we should do so, either. Additionally, maintaining just one article for both incarnations of the same storm allows us to keep all of the information together in the same place for our readers, which helps both with avoiding confusion and improving article quality, especially when the impacts have so much overlap as in the case of this storm. Just to be clear, I am not opposed to having a new flood article for the impacts from this storm, but I am opposed to splitting it up based solely on the NHC' naming protocol. BTW, there is currently another discussion underway on how we should handle articles for crossover storms, such as this one. I think that whatever comes out of that discussion should be how we deal with this article and the others, moving forward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never, ever heard of such policy regarding crossover storms before. AFAIK, we followed whatever the meteorological agencies (RSMCs, TCWCs and related) stated, and we complied with their own criterias. And yes, we do have to follow the agencies' satetements and opinions, since otherwise it would constitute as WP:POV and WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't a content/information creator, it's an encyclopedic aggregator, and as such we can't make info on our own, just pick up what's out there and organize it on a encyclopedic manner, that's on the very foundation of Wikipedia's existance (like JoeMT615 stated before). About Hermine, its report state that 11E's "middle-level circulation accompanied by the weak surface low continued northward and moved over the southern Bay of Campeche", while 11E's report state in it's last Best Track point that it "moved into Atlantic basin to become Tropical Storm Hermine", also adding to the fact that 11E's last BT point overlaps with Hermine's first, both having the same position at the same time. There's much more evidence that Hermine and 11E are the same system than Amanda and Cristobal, on which Amanda's report state that "After landfall, Amanda moved northward across Guatemala, and its center dissipated before 1800 UTC 31 May over the mountainous terrain of the country.", which is backed up by Cristobal's one, having more than one day of gap between Amanda's last BT point and Cristobal's first. ABC paulista (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The discussion of the previous merge had a weak consensus, only a couple of users chimed their opinions directly on the merge topic. I do think that creating a flood article merging Amanda, the CAG, and part of Cristobal was what should have been the result of the previous discussions. Cristobal will need its own article since there were meaningful impacts to other areas. In regards to whether or not the systems are the same. I have reviewed the TCRs and other discussions and can say with a certain amount of confidence that the LLC did not make it past the mountains. The resulting low pressure area became defused with the Central American gyre and eventually that lobe of the circulation tightened into Cristobal. I think that was the message that the NHC wanted to convey as their rational for separating the systems. Supportstorm (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "2020 Central America and Mexico floods" is not at all a WP:COMMONNAME whereas both storm names are. I'd support this as a split, but the storms must stay separate from it in that case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need just need enough met to give a background on what was causing the flood event. We don't need a fully blown out/developed met. We can cover details in the season article for Amanda that don't pertain to its role in this event. NoahTalk 20:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong oppose Why in the world would we change this? That does not make any sense when the tropical cyclone was named. Plus, the effects were not limited to just Central America. I think that trying to move this article and set up different sub-articles for the SAME SYSTEM is TOTALLY unnecessary and will just bring about more debate on 'which storm name did this damage' and 'what storm name caused that damage'. Leave it alone man. Just leave it alone. Its fine in the combined version as it is.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to create an article just for the damage on Mexico and Central America, and a standalone article for Cristobal which would contain its effects on the US. ABC paulista (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's like splitting Hurricane Eta's effects in Central America and combining it with Hurricane Iota. I'm okay with making an effects article for the flooding, but a standalone article for Cristobal in the U.S.? No. That's overcomplicating things.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a standalone article for Cristobal only for its effects in the U.S., but a standalone article for Cristobal as a whole, which would also contain info about its effects on the countries affected by it. ABC paulista (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The NHC were quite clear that Cristobal regenerated into Amanda, which as a result means that it was the same system and we are not committing OR by saying that they were.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support However, a flood article is unnecessary, I think we should give both storms their separate articles back, per User:Jasper Deng's reasoning. Put simply, Cristobal formed from Amanda's remnants, as well as from other environmental factors, per User:Hurricane Noah. This was a bold move putting the two articles together, but in the end, if a disturbance, even if it's remnants, enters another basin, they will be given the basin's naming scheme should they form. Our job is to follow the sources, none of which put Amanda and Cristobal as the same storm system, but rather separate systems linked by history. This article was well-intentioned, but the consensus for it was rather weak and I believe this was created more out of User:LightandDark2000's opinion on the storms than on actual sources. Please re-divide, but I won't do so until we have a larger consensus. StormedEditor (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StormedEditor: Please read this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: Never mind. I didn't see you already had. Please forgive me.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per above (couldn't explain it better). This has dragged on a bit too long. We should establish a common practice/guideline/essay for WPTC regarding crossovers, etc. CodingCyclone [citation needed] 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Amanda and Cristobal were different systems, and we need to follow the guidelines established by the NHC, by real meteorologists and not the opinions of our editors. This article is a violation of all of our sources, which clearly establish they are different systems. Also, for reference, the NHC mentioned in Tropical Storm Julio's first discussion that if the storm had developed directly from Nana's remnants and circulation, it would have retained the name Nana, but didn't since other environmental factors were involved. Same case with Cristobal: it did not directly develop from the same center, circulation, and LLCC as Amanda, so it isn't Amanda. They are just linked by long term meteorological developments, similarly to Julio and Nana, or Alma and Arthur of 2008, or Ten and Katrina of 2005. Amanda isn't Otto. JoeMT615 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JoeMT615: Read the TCR carefully you will see that we are following the NHC by saying that Amanda is a regeneration of Cristobal and are not making the rules up ourselves.Jason Rees (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jason Rees, I agree that Cristobal regenerated from Amanda's remnants. But Amanda's center and LLCC already dissipated. Therefore, the systems aren't the same; rather, Amanda just became a disturbance. Similar case with Nana: its center dissipated so it was not counted as the same system when it regenerated into Julio. If Amanda was disorganized enough (i.e., not enough deep convection left) to be declared a remnant low but its low- or mid-level circulation remained intact, I would agree that this article was correct. But this isn't the case. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Though Amanda's LLCC did dissipate, the LLCC is not the identity of a storm, even if the NHC assigns a new name. Gummycow moomilk 01:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose in the Universe despite this meaning nothing:- Per comment above. ~ 🌀 SCS CORONA 🌀 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT SPLIT - OPPOSE RENAME / MOVE We should make the combined impacts an article, Amanda an article, and Cristobal an article. 2 separate but meteorologically connected systems, per NHC. ~ AC5230 talk 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda/Cristobal Split

I personally believe that an article on Cristobal's separate impacts in the US is unnecessary, and would like to re-create Amanda's article and re-separate Amanda and Cristobal, since the NHC and all of our sources are consistent in saying that the two systems are linked but not the same storm overall. Support or Oppose? JoeMT615 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support it even more than the proposal above. I think the previous setup was fine that way. ABC paulista (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per my reasoning and those of others in the discussion above. Quite frankly, Amanda/Cristobal were the same storm, even if the NHC didn't explicitly declare it as such. Hurricane Beryl in 2018 and Hurricane Lee (2017) were exactly the same; the LLCC dissipated and the mid-level circulation regenerated those storms. However, the only difference here is that Amanda/Crisobal regenerated after a crossover event, whereas the previous two storms I names were not. The truth is, the NHC assigned a new name ONLY because the storm did not cross basins as a tropical cyclone. If it had stayed within the same basin, it would have retained the same name. If the articles do get broken up again, then this is what I would prefer, but I do not support breaking them up. Honestly, I think that we should keep the discussion in one place, in order to keep it from being broken up even further. BTW, Hurricane Noah has emailed the NHC for their opinion on Amanda/Cristobal, similar to how our editors emailed the NHC during a discussion on how to handle 11-E/Hermine years ago. I think that we should take their response into account here, once they reply. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does seem that they have distinct reassignment criteria for crossover storms compared to non-crossover ones, but it's not our job to try to "correct" that, we can only play by their rules (playing by ours would constitute WP:OR). ABC paulista (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000, I agree with ABC paulista in that in would be OR for us to "correct" the NHC's criteria. Also, Beryl and Lee were within the same basin; since Amanda dissipated, and there is a one-day gap between Cristobal's and Amanda's starting points in their TCRs, it is abundantly clear that Cristobal is a different system, and that the disturbance it left behind, which is only part of what Amanda was the first place, should be treated as a disturbance entering a basin, not remnants, which the NHC stated on their final track map for Amanda had dissipated; therefore, the sporadic storms left behind by Amanda and their combination with new convection over the Bay of Campeche means that Cristobal was formed by a contribution of Amanda and new convection, not directly by the actual remnants that dissipated over Central America. However, if the NHC clarifies differently for @Hurricane Noah and agrees with you, I will certainly support your combination of the articles. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both storms shared the same MH and impacts. It's a pretty rare occurrence, and I believe they should be treated as one article, given their significant overlap, more than any discussion about regeneration/same cyclone or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the official

I don't care what you do as long as you stick with the official stats. In this case, the article Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal doesn't follow the NHC so I think it should be reverted back to separate storms. We should stick to wiki standards imo. If we follow the standards that yall are proposing then Nana-Julio would be a thing. — Preceding signed comment added by Doge1941 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doge1941, I agree. But please put this in the above section as support for split so that this conversation isn't all over the place please. JoeMT615 (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry about that. Doge1941 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_storms_Amanda_and_Cristobal&oldid=1010083060"