This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance). North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Central America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America Caribbean Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Annual readership

Since this has been rather consistent in the past few years around this time (edit warring in regards to when this article should be created), please refer to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Atlantic hurricane season as it has been discussed in regards to this 'issue'. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of clarity, perhaps we should establish a standard practice at WPTC. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard practice is to make the article either at the start of the cyclone year, or whenever there is the first bit of info unique to the season (generally the first forecast), whichever comes first. Also, unrelated, but potentially subject of a future edit war: this season might start on 5/15. We’ll find out in a few weeks if the season starts then, or just TWOs. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NWS sent out a message this morning saying TWOs will start on 5/15. Until they say otherwise for the starting date itself, that stays 6/1. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same message, they said that the start date would still be 6/1. I think it is safe to say that for now at least, June 1st is the date that should be kept. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely starts at 6/1. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The season is expected to start on 6/1 unless they decide at the RA IV meeting that it should start on 5/15 alongside the issuance of the TWOs. Gumballs678 talk 21:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking before I start a potential edit war: do we really need to include the auxiliary list here? I understand we should mention the difference in policy the NHC undertook this year, but I feel the new list doesn't need to be shown unless the season surpasses 21 storms, and that linking to the tropical cyclone naming page should suffice. JoeMT615 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, 2020_Pacific_typhoon_season does mention the auxiliary list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. Feel free to revert, and then we'll discuss it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so much wait until we reach Wanda, but at least wait until we get close to the end of the list, like we did last year. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent we should be waiting. The aux list will always be available on the Tropical Cyclone Naming page. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we wait. Like Darkside said, the aux list is visible and available on the tropical cyclone naming page. It's too premature to show the list now as the season has yet to begin or even have activity that would potentially allow the new list to be used. It should remain as it was prior to this discussion, in that we mention the procedure of the list being used in the event 2021 exhausts its regular 21 names. Gumballs678 talk 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple reverts from people adding citations for AccuWeather's predictions, and the reverters claim that AccuWeather is an unreliable source. This is true, but would it not be ok to cite them in the context of showing their claims as opinion, and indicating it as such, i.e "AccuWeather made their forecast for activity on..." Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 15:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't as reliable as other forecasts, wouldn't mentioning them anyway give WP:UNDUE weight to their viewpoint. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the IP who keeps adding these AccuWeather appears to either work at AccuWeather or have some kind of connection there. All of their edits are on figures related to AccuWeather, and most of them are adding information that can be considered biased. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 17:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving a message on their talk page, too. They might not be reading edit summaries. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm kind of late to the convo, but AccuWeather has warned me of a Category 4 hurricane in my area. In March. And I live in the suburbs of Chicago. They are rather unreliable and shouldn't be added. Thanks for asking! JayTee🐦 19:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayTee32: I've seen those. Is that actually AccuWeather or some clickbait scam site pretending to be AccuWeather? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those as well, they just appear to be an attention-grab, meant for the viewer to actually somehow believe that there is a storm, and as such download the app to get more information (I think?) Most of them are sites that impersonations Accuweather, though I have seen a few Accuweather ads. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been some clickbait, as I never follow those links, but still, a website that makes ads by pasting an IR image of Hurricane Dorian over the Midwest doesn't strike me as trustworthy, even if this is only as attention-grabbers. JayTee🐦 14:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely right about that. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHC updated their last TWO to say May 15, but It has been edited back to June 1? SputtyTheSputnik (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that TWOs will begin May 15 even though the season starts on June 1. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TWOs seem to have started (see NHC website). However, the season will not begin until June 1. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As National Hurricane Center doesn't control ATCF because it was created by United States Naval Research Laboratory and Joint Typhoon Warning Center which NHC can override ATCF, Please wait for official NHC advisory before adding to this article Thanks. ElenaCyclone (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Ana's track is a bit off, there should be a TD dot before it goes extratropical at the very end. CoolStuffYT

@CoolStuffYT:, When Ana became classified as a TD, it may have been during an intermediate advisory, in which case it wouldn't always show up on the track map, or basically known as a non-synoptic point (I believe). A similar case is Hurricane Lorenzo (2019), in which even though it made category five status, it was for only one intermediate advisory, and as such, the cat 5-colored dot doesn't show up. Here is a better explanation for Lorenzo's track map: Talk:Hurricane Lorenzo (2019)/Archive 1#downgraded? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 14:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the regular advisories offset from the synoptic points by 3 hours anyway? The advisory downgrading Ana to a TD was issued at 2100. BT has it as a storm at 1800 and a remnant low at 0000. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh Okay, that makes more sense. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I just wanna make sure everyone knows how to calculate ACE correctly, Ana's is correct (that is my apologies, I miscounted). From 35kts (40 mph) and above, values are greater than 0 and divided by 10,000 will give you the value. For example, 35x35 (as you're squaring the wind speed value in knots) is 1,225. Divide that by 10,000 and you receive a value of 0.1225. If a storm is a tropical depression at any point in its life, those values are 0 and do not count towards the overall value for that storm (or in the end, the season value).

Furthermore, before we get into the brunt of the season and we have multiple storms with ACE, are we continuing to use our formula for ACE, or will we be going off what CSU has for their ACE? I believe last year we had a discussion where we decided to go off CSU's values and not Wiki's values anymore, but I could be wrong. It's important we solve this and come to a consensus before more ACE values are calculated. Gumballs678 talk 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the discussion that we had regarding the calculation of ace: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 43#RFC: ACE Calcs. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 14:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I couldn't find earlier to link to it! Gumballs678 talk 16:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the linked discussion was closed with consensus to use official sources over our own calculations, I would propose including the following text in the article:

The ACE index for the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, as calculated by Colorado State University using data from the National Hurricane Center (NHC), is 1.0 units (as of 21:00 UTC May 26).^[1]

In-text attribution would make it clear where we are getting the ACE values from. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. It's clear, concise, and accurate. Gumballs678 talk 10:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has the ACE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving discussion, since this doesn't appear to have been addressed. Perhaps changing the reference to this^[2] would be better as it shows the total ACE for the basin. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like a good idea. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and make the changes since no one else seems to want to comment. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed Ana's image has been changed a decent amount of times, and I'm hoping an image can be settled on considering a discussion hasn't been posted here.

Image 1 (previous image)	Image 2 (current image)

Cyclonetracker (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for Image 2 Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 02:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Image 2 and this shouldn’t have really been written given previous stances in the edit summary per @Hurricaneboy23:. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Image 2 per the above. HurricaneEdgar 07:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarioProtIV: https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/ATCF/NHC/bal012021.dat If the two images above were at 11z and 15z on the 22nd, both images are at the same intensity. Cyclonetracker (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Image One Much more representative of the storm, image quality seems better as well. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CycloneFootball71: I support Image 1. Ana's peak intensity was straight at formation, and by the time the second image was captured, Ana was 35kts. Maybe someone can upload an image of the storm on may 23. 2607:FEA8:121F:A440:1C01:58CC:E983:4B23 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that is also true as well. I am not the photo expert on storms, so someone else may have to do that. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to publish the draft for PTC 3 yet? It already heavily impacted Mexico, we have 2 full paragraphs of preparations, and tropical storm-force winds are impacting Louisiana. I think it’s ready to publish.DachshundLover82 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors of Wikipedia! There is an ongoing discussion on whether Tropical Storm Elsa should be protected once moved into the mainspace should be protected due to the specific reasons listed on the discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated, thanks!DachshundLover82 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

45 times 1.6 = 72. 46.875 times 1.6 = 75. 45 times 1.666666666666666666666666 (a repeating decimal) is 75. Georgia guy (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: The NHC uses knots and converts them to mph, hence why we don't get storms that are 55 mph, 95 mph, etc. Converting from knots gets 46 miles per hour (74 km/h), which can be rounded to 45 mph and 75 km/h. Akbermamps 01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current article text contains:

"However, subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis is possible at any time of the year, as demonstrated by the early formation of Tropical Storm Ana on May 22, making 2021 the seventh consecutive year that a storm formed before the official start of the season."

I hold that a single occurrence of a tropical storm which did not even last two days does not at all demonstrate that subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis is possible at any time of the year. A demonstration of this claim would, however, be possible with enough reliable data of the kind indicated in the table Most intense Atlantic tropical cyclones by month on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records, because these data span the entire calendar year.

Besides, 22 May is not even that far off from the 'traditional' Atlantic hurricane season onset date of 1 June, so it would hardly support, let alone prove, the claim.

So I propose the word demonstrate be used no more in relation to (single) occurrences that cannot demonstrate a particular claim.Redav (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I understand your argument, however, regardless of how long Ana lasted, because it formed on May 22, before the 'official' start of the season, it does demonstrate that tropical cyclogenesis is possible at any such point during the year. Pre-season activity ends at 0000 UTC on June 1. So, even if Ana formed at 2100 UTC on May 31, it would still add to the point of the possibility of tropical cyclogenesis at any point during the year. Gumballs678 talk 16:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSU predicts 20 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes. Named storm forecast includes the storms that have formed already (Ana-Elsa) Source: https://tropical.colostate.edu/Forecast/2021-07.pdf MoiraPrime (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, adding the above gave me my 10th edit and I was able to add it myself. MoiraPrime (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence:

However, subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis is possible at any time of the year, as demonstrated[clarification needed] most recently by the early formation of Tropical Storm Ana on May 22, making 2021 the seventh consecutive year that a storm formed before the official start of the season.

Please remove the clarify template and replace "possible at any time of the year" with "before June 1" because while an occurrence before June 1 doesn't demonstrate anything about "any time of the year" (e.g. it doesn't demonstarte anything about December 31), it does demonstrate that a storm can form before June 1. 64.203.186.71 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The sentence is meant to refer to the potential of tropical cyclogenesis both before June 1 and after November 30, not simply to formation before June 1. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an open wave for now but I think we should still put the TS watches and warnings, it's virtuallt just a PTC atp but idk about y'all if you plan to do that. CycloneEditor (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few seasons, I believe the practice is to keep the {{infobox hurricane current}}, current storm information, and watches and warnings up as long as the NHC is still issuing advisories. This applied to both post-tropical and potential tropical cyclones; Fred should be treated the same way especially now that tropical storm watches are back up. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed User:Cindercat put an extended list of watches and warnings issued by the National Weather Service under the watches and warnings section of TS Fred. Should we include the extended list or only put what the NHC has on their advisories? Kayree kh (alt) (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this watch from weather.gov, the watch is associated with Tropical Storm Fred ("Rainfall associated with Tropical Storm Fred will begin to move..."). That's why I included the watch in the list. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 16:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the flash flood watch under it's own 4-= heading "Additional watches and warnings" so it's separated from the watches and warnings in the advisories. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 16:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

both of these storms had made landfall in specific places, for example Grace made landfall in Dominic Republic as a TD is and it currently over Haiti which a 7.2 magnitude earthquake happened not to long ago. And fred made landfall as a near hurricane so they should get an article. Nioni1234 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make an article for Fred? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft for Fred at Draft:Tropical Storm Fred (2021). ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i create the draft of Grace, Grace need a article if anyone help the draft click here. Draft:Tropical Storm Grace (2021) HurricaneEdgar 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think there should be an article about Tropical Storm Fred. Can someone please make it? PandasAndShibaInus (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PandasAndShibaInus: See the section above. There is a draft in the works. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone Fred is now post-tropical. Is it active yet or not? I'm updating information for the Lusophone Wikipedia André L P Souza (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is active as post-tropical, in season this is not a active because we base on Extropical or post-tropical to considering none active, if the storm made article still active since NHC issued a final warning the WPC continue update so we bases in WPC.

since the WPC continue issued now the current information keep, until WPC issued final warring.

WPC Public Advisory of Fred HurricaneEdgar 18:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We ran into this issue just now with Tropical Storm Grace, and it happened a few times last year, where somebody started an article for a storm that already had a draft underway. Should we have some system in place to avoid this confusion? Perhaps a table of storm names on this talk page so people cab check if it's redlinked or not? Maybe add a hidden note to redirects if the storm has a draft? TornadoLGS (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My personal suggestion is that we standardize on a "Draft:Tropical Storm [Foo]" draft. Whether it's a hurricane or typhoon or tropical storm or whatever isn't really important at the draft stage and the draft can be launched into the suitable article title. Year numbers aren't important at the draft stage yet, either - also can be put into the article title at launch if necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for more coordination. I added an edit notice, so people see it every time they edit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

might better if add notice all tropical cyclone season HurricaneEdgar 13:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the pages "Hurricane Grace (2021)" on Lusophone Wikipédia and Wikidata. Strange this page hasn't been created yet. I have information about the storm and heavy rain record in Haiti. André L P Souza (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@André L P Souza: See Draft:Hurricane Grace (2021). TornadoLGS (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the draft article for Grace are either old or outdated and i want atleast some people to help me finish this and be release to the publicNioni1234 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nioni1234: Please calm down! Someone will eventually update the draft and publish it before Grace makes landfall. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok Nioni1234 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's a draft about henri 2021 but its not perfect will some of you help me fix it up? Draft:Tropical Storm Henri (2021) Nioni1234 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please create the Hurricane Henri article on English Wikipedia? This is the first tropical cyclone which may travel over New England in thirty years. The last tropical cyclone to move directly across New England while a hurricane was Bob on August 19, three decades ago. Henri may travel over similar areas to the previous hurricane. Tropical cyclone notices were just posted for southern New England and southeast New York State (starting with areas just outside New York City extending eastward near the eastern tip of Long Island). When the article associated with Henri is created here, references will be needed (not just any particular reference, however; reliable references are required for this tropical storm/hurricane article). Angela Kate Maureen (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there already draft for Henri above your reply. 74.11.179.130 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I published the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, please replace "3 more named storms" with "Another 3 named storms" because sentences shouldn't start with numerals. 64.203.186.93 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be moved to a regular article soon instead of a draft. Its impacts on land will probably be significant enough to be of importance to put on an article link. But, i want to hear your opinions. Sria >:3 SR.1111111 (talk)♥️ 00:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR.1111111, an article focusing on Hurricane Grace already exists. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I knew there was a draft for it but it was moved to Hurricane Grace and no one responded here. Sria >:3 SR.1111111 (talk)♥️ 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Storm is threatening the Cayman Islands, Cuba, and the US, specifically Louisiana so where's the draft? AndrewHat250 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will start one pretty soon. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit: it is up. Have at it but don’t publish until we have enough content or if things deteriorate quick enough to warrant it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, I noticed that 20 deaths had been attributed to then Tropical Depression 9, because on Tuesday major flooding struck Merida in Venezuela. The storms were at the very most the very southern tip of the storms that would end up spawning Ida. I removed the 20 deaths but it has since been added again.

I do not believe that these 20 deaths should be attributed to Ida. RaskBunzzz (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A death is a death. Even if it was due to it passing over. MoonlightVector 12:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why these deaths shouldn't be attributed, Ida and its precursor are still the same storm; we did the same thing with Hurricane Nate. Akbermamps 12:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support – Ida's precursor was at South America only three days ago, which any of you can easily tell had you paid more attention to the track or tracked the storm earlier this week. We don't need to wait for the TCR to make an obvious connection. Any and all deaths caused by a storm (as a precursor, a tropical cyclone, and as a remnant) should all be included in its death toll. While it is preferred that the sources name the storms, it is not required. Case closed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LightandDark2000: It is OR to attribute any impacts to Ida without RS or official information. Destroyer (Alternate account) 17:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Destroyeraa: No, it is NOT. We both know full well that the "most official" sources do not cover everything all the time, and sometimes, they are wrong. We DO NOT need to be meteorologists to call out the obvious. We are NOT obligated to follow only what Academia or the most official Government sources say, nor should we. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself on this point over and over again. And both of us have written articles where we used sources in which some sources did not directly name the storm in question, but the impacts were obviously related. This is the same thing here. This is a ridiculous content dispute that never should've become as much of an issue as it has. The more you dig in here, the more you are contributing to this unnecessary drama. I would suggest that you avoid picking content fights on areas where you don't have a firm understanding of either the Wikipedia policies or the information involved. "The Reuters source does not attribute it to Ida, or a tropical wave." Are you kidding me!? Not all sources will explicitly name the storm, especially when you're looking at the precursor impacts (and sometimes, even for the remnants). And not tied to a tropical wave?? Seriously?!? Most of those sources would not even mention tropical waves unless they get their info directly from the NHC, or other career meteorologists in the US. And we can't rely on those official sources all the time. We have a reliable source reporting deaths from Ida's precursor (even if it hasn't been explicitly named). We cannot ignore that. How many times do I (and Noah, and others) need to repeat myself before people finally understand that we cannot ignore our reliable sources!? LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm...Hurricane Leslie formed from the souther half of the post tropical remnants of Florence. Similarly, Ida formed from the northern half of a broad tropical wave/monsoon gyre. Should Florence's death toll be incorporated into Leslie's, if it's "clearly the same system"? Of course not! Also, many tropical wave precursors cause thunderstorms and flooding in Africa as part of the monsoon, similarly to how Ida's precursor was the Venezuelan monsoon trough. Do we need to find the African impacts? No. Attributing these deaths to Ida is wrong per source synthesis policies/guidelines.Destroyer (Alternate account) 19:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense, but what you just said is not true. If that were the case, we wouldn't have attributed three indirect deaths to the precursor of Hurricane Helene (2018) over Africa nor the indirect death caused by the precursor to Tropical Storm Vicky (2020) in Cabo Verde. Just saying.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChessEric: No offense taken. Vicky's deaths were confirmed by the TCR. Im not sure about Helene. Either way, we should wait for official sources to confirm possibly-related deathsnot attributed by RS. Reuters did not attribute the flooding to Ida. Its similar to Infa and the Henan floods, only that the floods are attributed to Infa by the CMA in the latter. In that case, WP decided to use its own judgement instead of following RS/official sources. We should not be using our own judgement and poorly synthesizing sources.Destroyer (Alternate account) 19:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose The Reuters source does not attribute it to Ida, or a tropical wave. It is OR or a poor synthesis of sources to attribute it to Ida. Read the source, please.Also, we did not ignore our reliable sources. Reuters is RS, but we should wait till the TCR to confirm these deaths.Destroyer (Alternate account) 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless a source explicitly attributes the flooding to Ida or its precursor, it's synthesis. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but... I'm fine with saying that the precursor to Ida caused these deaths. However, I'm NOT fine with calling them direct. Precursor wave deaths are deemed by the NHC are seen as indirect, not direct, no matter what kind of death it is (see Tropical Storm Vicky (2020) TCR). That does need to be changed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will say that it interesting that none of the articles I'm finding even mention Ida in the Venezuela flooding disaster, so that does muddy the waters of this claim a little bit. Additionally, even more rain is in the forecast for the country, so the death toll may rise and it wouldn't even be remotely close to being caused by Ida. I may have to reconsider my decision.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sorry, but I think everyone should take a short break from this discussion. It appears to be quite heated in some sense, and I think a short break would help cool things down, and give everyone time to think stuff over. Just a suggestion, not trying to impinge on the discussion, I just don't like seeing my fellow editors get into disagreements. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless there is a source linking it to Ida. I have had to cut things out of my own articles and exclude items I knew were connected because I couldn't prove it. Destroyeraa is right that it is OR to link the flooding to Ida if the source doesn't explicitly state it or another one doesn't mention it. I have been able to use news sources that don't mention a specific cause because the NHC TCR said it affected the area. In this case, I don't believe we have anything tying it to Ida. Noah^Talk 20:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the absence of reliable sources confirming the landslides were caused by precursor of Ida and not a separate thunderstorm event. Doing so would go against our policies on original research. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the deaths are not attributed to Ida then should Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama be removed from "Areas Affected"? Ida did not impact those areas as a tropical depression or stronger, only the precursor did. RaskBunzzz (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there already a number for Ida's damage? Where are the references to this $15B number that has been applied? The reference listed below when mentioning the seasonal effects does not state anything about the damage. We shouldn't make any assumptions of the storm's damage until there are valid articles about it, posted below.