Talk:Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

@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)

@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)

With the reports of fatalities coming in this is certainly expandable now. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead

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

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)

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)

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

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)

It was June 10. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@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)

actually, the article for hurricane hazel has its dissipation date for the extratropical remnants' absorbtion. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. 2003 LN6 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Crossover Status

I understand the consensus is to keep this article; however, can we take out the mention of Amanda-Cristobal being a crossover system? Regardless of whether they were the same system ultimately, Amanda's circulation didn't survive the crossover, so it can't be considered a crossover tropical cyclone, even if its remnants became Cristobal. JoeMT615 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll modify the lead. While I feel that they are the same system, it is true that the storm did not make the crossover as a tropical cyclone. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000, Thanks, I understand your rationale for keeping the article, I just don't want to overstep and say it was a crossover. JoeMT615 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus against the proposed renaming. There is also no consensus in this discussion for a split, although there is also a separate discussion below on that point.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

---

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. Noah^Talk 19:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 a different 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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. Noah^Talk 20:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • @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)
    • @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)
• 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 ^moo_milk 01:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strongest Oppose in the Universe despite this meaning nothing:- Per comment above. ~ 🌀 SCS CORONA 🌀 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• Strongly Oppose – The article should be used as information for this one storm in particular. It should not be moved because the NHC is making clear that Cristobal had regenerated into Amanda. They are the same storm, just degraded at a fast timing and regenerated. @LightandDark2000 had specifically stated all of what I needed to say. This is really unnecessary because if we did happen to split this one up, this should also occur for Tropical Storm Hermine, Hurricane Iota, and so forth. This PDF here states that Amanda was a remnant low and had merged together with the trough over southeastern Mexico to form Cristobal. So technically, they are just merged storms which need to stay together in one article like this. 🌀Aegeou2🌀← talk 14:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, your argument futher supports the idea of splitting these topics. Per NHC's procedures, they only consider storms to be the same system if the regeneration process happens directly from the remnant low/open through, without the participation of other meteorological phenomena, like what happened in the cases of Mitch, Ivan, Harvey and Lee, for example. When either another low forms indirecty from the remnant low/open through, or other meteorological features absorb, merge or interact with it, than they are considered different systems. That's the main argument used by NHC to separate storms like Ten–Katrina, Alma–Arthur, Grace–Twelve, Ilsa-Twelve, etc. About Hermine, it's case was different from Amanda and Cristobal, as explained above. Not sure what Iota has to do with this matter, though. ABC paulista (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not convinced by the wording of the TCR, personally. Since the original discussion, my opinion has changed; I think a separate flood article, an article for Amanda and an article for Cristobal are good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 March 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.

Flood Article?

Hello everybody. Honestly I feel that Tropical Storm Amanda and Cristobal should be split, with the impacts in Central America being written into an article such as the 2020 Central America floods.DachshundLover82 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@DachshundLover82: Already discussed above and denied. Noah^Talk 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Amanda/Cristobal Split

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.

---

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

@JoeMT615: In the Cristobal TCR, NHC explicitly mentions on page 2 that the formation of Cristobal was "the regeneration of a tropical depression at 1800 UTC 1 June". This, to me, is sufficient grounds to think that NHC knows they are the same tropical cyclone even if they are two systems by virtue of having two names. The absence of points on the map between Amanda's dissipation and Cristobal's formation can be simply explained by the lack of a low-level circulation center to peg the points to. Your reasoning that "Cristobal was formed by a contribution of Amanda and new convection, not directly by the actual remnants that dissipated over Central America" appears to contradict the NHC as they only mention the remnant low-pressure area from Amanda regenerating after entering the Bay of Campeche and not that another weather system came and merged with it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The low-level circulation center argument doesn't hold up, since other similar instances of storms that lost their LLCC and regenerated later at some point of their life cycles, like hurricanes Mitch, Lee and Beryl, do have continuous tracking. ABC paulista (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@KN2731, the NHC's final track map for Amanda states that its remnants dissipated. There was also a huge gyre present that contributed to Cristobal's formation as well. I don't know how else to put this: if the NHC says they're different systems and treats them as such, we cannot combine the articles. We are bound to follow our sources. JoeMT615 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Strongest oppose in the entire universe despite this meaning nothing:- Per above comment by Hurricanehink. Can't say it better. ~ 🌀 SCS CORONA 🌀 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per comment by @LightandDark2000. It is better if we keep the discussion in one place. The commet explains everything I needed to say. Remember, this is the exact same storm and should not be split. The article should be used as information for this one storm in paticular. 🌀Aegeou2🌀← talk 17:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Per LightandDark2000 and Hurricanehink. The NHC is very ambiguous on this, while they gave A-C 2 different names, they also say that Cristobal formed from Amanda in its TCR. Every time this discussion comes up, my answer will be the same. This is the same storm, and we should consider merging some other articles. (sorry if this doesn't make sense.) CodingCyclone ^{[citation needed]} 18:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• support 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)

@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)

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

This should be splitted into 2 articles because that its kinda hard to actually attempt to scroll through a article about two tropical cyclones i mean what's the point OrzonYT (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as I stated above. ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – The articles are functioning fine merged together and there was already a VERY CLEAR consensus before supporting the merge. Just because you don't personally agree with the merge doesn't warrant a split. Sorry. Also, I agree with LightandDark2000 that we aren't required to listen to the NHC or NWS to satisfy our readers. If we want to merge 2 articles together which clearly can work together, we can do that. I'm pretty sure this fact has already been addressed multiple times. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment At the very least, the article should reflect that most reliable sources (i.e. NHC, El Salvador's SNET, etc) treat Amanda and Cristobal as two systems no matter how dodgy the reasoning is, per WP:V. (FWIW, it looks to me like they treat Amanda as an Eastern Pacific TC and Cristobal as an Atlantic TC to avoid having to give a definitive answer whether they are technically the same system.) The continuous flooding event in Central America and Mexico, however, is a compelling reason to use just one article to cover both systems, as sources don't really separate the impact from Amanda and Cristobal, making it essentially impossible to explain the impact from one without the other. I don't think using one article for two tropical cyclones has been done before, but it should be possible. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I could be okay with such merging, under this premise, if the article reflected that. If the article was focused on the flooding and damage cuased by them, with just some superficial info on the cyclones to give some context related to the main topic, it would be okay to mantain as it is. But as it stands now, the article is just misleading the reader into beliveing that the two cyclones are considered to be one and the same by the agencies and other authorities on the subject. ABC paulista (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, @Hurricaneboy23 and @LightandDark2000; look, I understand your rationale for keeping the article, but the thing that continually stops me from supporting it is because it is a direct violation of all of our sources, none of which list this as Tropical Storm Amanda-Cristobal. And I don't feel a consensus to go against something the NHC said is legitimate if it constitutes OR. Again, it makes sense that these are the same storm systems, but this can be addressed in their separate meteorological histories, as before. My point simply is: if the NHC doesn't say Amanda-Cristobal, if our news sources don't say Amanda-Cristobal, I don't like that Wikipedia says Amanda-Cristobal. JoeMT615 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, I don’t understand how people are supporting it like this. Imagine you were somebody just looking for an article on Cristobal, and you only know it as that. If we went by something like this all the time we’d have stuff like Tropical Storm Matmo-Cyclone Bulbul. We should go by the NHC and keep these separate and just talk about both when needed in articles. This could be considered a Wikipedia violation and should be changed back to normal in my opinion. We should only do these articles for crossover storms before 1996.DachshundLover82 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - they were the same impact event, and shared a meteorology history, we can call them two systems and still have them in the same article. Re: Matmo/Bulbul, they had separate impact events, one in Mainland South Asia, and the other in the Ganges Delta. In this case, both storms had significant effects in Central America, and it would be ultimately redundant to have them as separate articles. I think it's American bias trying to push Cristobal to have its own article, since that is the impact that would be separated from the article covering the Central America floods. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd support this idea if the article was about the the they dealt together, and/or focused on their impact. The way it stands now, it's neither the case. ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Slight Support, I have changed my opinion, as @JoeMT615 makes more sense to me, but we should make it clear that they were technically the same storm in both articles. Gummycow ^moo_milk 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Technically" based on what? I don't remember many agencies and/or specialists on the subject claiming that they were the same entity, and NHC's wording on the reports aren't direct enough for us to assume such. If anything, Bret's report indicates that NHC don't consider crossover instances where the low-level circulation dissipates. ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• support I support splitting the articles. I am quite confused about the rationale of keeping the article as two storms. To be clear, the NHC stated that Cristobal regenerated from the remnants of Amanda. We have to remember that there were other events that contributed to Cristobal's formation, such as a CAG present at the time. This isn't a case like that of Hurricane Cesar–Douglas, where the circulation clearly survived the crossover, without dissipation, and became a separately named storm. In that case, I believe that it makes sense to keep both systems in one article, as many other sources also call the storm "Cesar–Douglas". I would also like to note that [5], and [6] clearly state that it was the same system, and that it survived the crossover unlike what the NHC said about the development of Cristobal from Amanda's remnants, in which they stated that Amanda’s remnants rotated northward and northwestward within the Central American gyre, leading to the formation of Atlantic Tropical Depression Three (which became Tropical Storm Cristobal) over the Bay of Campeche the next day on 1 June. On the the Cristobal TCR, they said that Amanda moved northeastward within the gyre and made landfall on the Pacific coast of Guatemala on 31 May, with its center dissipating over the mountainous terrain of that country late in the day. The remnant low pressure area continued to rotate northward and then northwestward across northern Guatemala and southeastern Mexico within the Central American gyre, emerging over the Bay of Campeche south of the city of Campeche, Mexico, around midday on 1 June. This is a clear case in which the center actually dissipated and reformed, contributing to a new storm. While they were connected, I do not think that they had enough connection to be considered the same storm, plus, the NHC wording strongly suggests that these weren't the same storm. However, I would support an article on the damages that both systems caused, as in that case the NHC acknowledges that Significant heavy rainfall occurred over portions of Central America and southeastern Mexico over a nine-day period (29 May–7 June) due to Tropical Storm Cristobal, eastern Pacific Tropical Storm Amanda, and the Central American gyre that both cyclones were embedded in. This shows that there were major impacts from three different systems, whereas if it were truely considered one storm they would mention it as Amanda/Cristobal or something like that. I hope that makes sense, that is what I feel the reasoning should be behind the article split. One last thing, we need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that we go by the reliable sources, and not our own opinions and feelings. In the case of the proposed split, the NHC considers the systems as separate, and as such, we should have the articles the same way, as it is technically WP:OR the way it is now. I also do not like the statement above that states that we aren't required to listen to the NHC or NWS to satisfy our readers, because that is blatantly false. I will reiterate that once again, we are supposed to listen to the NHC and NWS as they are RELIABLE SOURCES. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia about opinions, but it is about facts. The FACT is that These were 2 systems that weren't considered a crossover event. Even if one helped form the other, that still does not necessarily mean that they are the same system. This should not be as big of an issue as it is. Please read WP:F13 and WP:WPTC/RS. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support While many of us feel that Amanda and Cristobal were the same system (myself included) we have to face the facts here, and the fact of the matter is that the NHC doesn't think that Amanda and Cristobal were the same storm. The wording used in the TCR was the same wording used operationally, a storm reforming from the remnants of another storm cross-basin does not make the storm a crossover, and claiming such is blatantly WP:OR. @JoeMT615 Also makes a good point about the average user searching for this article. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support: to say that Amanda and Cristobal are the same storm, when the NHC says otherwise (though they do say "linked"), is a violation of WP:OR. We must follow what the official sources say and not indulge in OR, however wrong the official version may feel. What's wrong with having two articles, as before? JavaHurricane 06:41, 5 April 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.

Requested move 30 March 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moot per above discussion. Meant to close along with the above. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal → Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal – I emailed the NHC and they keep saying that these were two storms. I am suggesting we keep one article, but adjust the title since the NHC says they are two systems. The met section would be split into two subsections and we can leave the effects combined for Central America and Mexico. Noah^Talk 21:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Email from NHC

Noah,

The Amanda TCR states that Amanda dissipated inland over Mountainous terrain. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/EP022020_Amanda.pdf. Once a system dissipates at the surface, it is treated as a completely new cyclone if a new one develops. This is more common in systems moving inland from the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico and moving westward over the eastern North Pacific.

David Zelinsky

National Hurricane Center

• Support - This sounds reasonable enough and captures what the NHC has said. I have also stricken out my previous comment saying they are the same storm. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Should "Storms" be capitalized? Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Paintspot: Not when you are referring to multiple storms. Tropical storms is just a common noun. Noah^Talk 21:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As Hurricane Noah stated above, no. This is because when the storms are listed, "tropical storms" is no longer treated as part of the name. Otherwise, they would be capitalized. We just need to follow WP:MOS for dealing with the title. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral – I am fine with either title. I believe that our readers would be best served by one article, due to the relation of the systems (basically two iterations/incarnations of one storm), and also due to the significant overlaps in impacts in Central America, which was basically the hardest-hit region. While I personally prefer a more succinct title, this option is also acceptable, and it may be the best compromise moving forward. The vast overlaps between Amanda and Cristobal, as well as their shared history, makes developing two separate articles quite difficult, especially since there are so many overlaps. Article quality matters a lot to me, and I would rather have one high-quality article that addresses everything than two separate articles that fail to properly cover the full range of this system. If a single article would make a future GA/FA attempt much easier, then that is our best option. This approach is a novel one on Wikipedia, but I see no reason why we can't implement this option. For the record, I support this proposal over breaking up the article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 14:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support The NHC said that they were separate storms I trust the NHC. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my comments over at #Amanda/Cristobal Split, with the condition that the article should be rewritten slightly to reflect that most reliable sources treat this as two storms. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support, but since the main premise of their merging was the joint damage they caused, I think that the article should reflect that and focus on their impact and damage, and the titleshould follow suit. I think that something on the lines of "June 2020 Central American floods" would be better. ABC paulista (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as I think we need to reflect the NHC's opinion, so we should make it clear they are two separate storms even if we keep one article for convenience's sake, which I understand. JoeMT615 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 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.

Closed RfM

I do not agree to the closure of the third discussion above, and as such, I object to the said closure. The discussion wasn't even close to wrapping up yet by any indication, and it was a completely separate discussion from the second one before. This discussion was also on another option entirely, yet one that still proposes a way to deal with the articles in question. Thus I feel that the outcome of the second discussion should not have any bearings on the outcome of the third one. In fact, if the third discussion was to be closed off in a way that is untethered to the second discussion, there is clear (though early) consensus for renaming the article as proposed. It is my belief that the third discussion should either be reopened and allowed to run its full course, or a move review is initiated. As things are right now, I do not think that we will find a satisfactory solution to the issues brought up in each discussion until we are allowed to discuss things thoroughly. And since the third discussion was still in progress, it should not have been closed off in the manner that it was. Abruptly cutting off a discussion in progress isn't the best way to handle a contested subject. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 no, it's not a separate discussion and it should not have been opened in the first place. The RM was inappropriate from the start and should've been brought up as part of the discussion above which got significantly more participation. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I also object and will be bringing it to move review. Noah^Talk 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And we now have a move review. To all those who were involved in these discussions, please comment there as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Splitting

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.

---

While the above discussions made points as to why both storms should be merged, I think resplitting the articles back into two is the better option for the sake of clarity. For one, the whole notion that we should treat the storms as one article despite being explicitly called separate by the NHC is encroaching WP:SYNTH in some form. Some may claim that having one page is necessary because of the impacts but that can easily be forked off into its own article on both storms while keeping the articles for each storm separate. Also, readers who will read this in its current form might get the wrong notion that both were one storm, which the NHC explained in Noah’s email that they are not. This kind of grouping despite being obviously separate storms would then have to be extended to other storms that are in the same situation such as Katia and Otis 2017, Hattie and Inga 1961, and so on. Obviously that shouldn’t happen so I strongly think we need to reconsider our position here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose – I think we should keep the article as it is right now, per the previous consensus and the various arguments presented in the 4 discussions above. We may actually end up merging some other articles in the near future on a case-by-case basis. This is a WP:DEADHORSE. Just let it rest already. This is a waste of time, IMO. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – *sigh* am I getting deja vu? In all seriousness, we've been over this 4 times. Again, we put them in the same article because the impacts are combined. We aren't saying that they were the same storm, so it is not original research or violating what the NHC is saying. We don't need to keep discussing this - this whole mess has been stressful for some editors. Like LightandDark2000 said, this is a WP:DEADHORSE, so let's just drop the sticks and back away. I also propose an indefinite split moratorium on this article. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Though there are good reasons to just keep the article as is, I still support splitting the articles as I did before. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DEADHORSE. I saw this page had been edited in my watchlist and decided to take a look. I also oppose as forking off the impact leaves the articles with little else and people have opposed having a vaguely titled flood article in the past. I see no good reason to split this up from its current stable form. Noah^Talk 23:09, 10 June 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.

Should storms be capitalized in the article name?

I don't know why but it feels super off to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skarmory: Not when it is tropical storms plural. It is a noun rather than a name. Noah^Talk 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)