Template:Not a forum

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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Do we need the auxiliary list? Since no storms are forming after Victor, and meteorologists are thinking that not much storms are going to pop out in the future, so either we can keep it or remove it. Third option is, we can only put 2 names there and keep it that way until a storm pops up. Is this a good option?Severestorm28 (talk)

I'd leave it up for now, since it wouldn't take much to pop off a couple late-season storm (and some favorable conditions apparently exist in the Gulf and Caribbean). Even if it is unlikely that we'll make it to the third auxiliary name, we should keep the three columns to match the main naming list, to keep the text formatting balanced. Personally, I'm an "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" type; I'd wait until late December to remove the auxiliary list, just since we're so close to the end of the regular list. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than likely that there will be at least one more named storm this year, and, based on the past few seasons, quite possible that there will be 2-3 more. I suggest keeping the six names currently there. I would also be okay with reducing the auxiliary names listed to the first three. Drdpw (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw I'd leave it with three, if people agree with making it three names in the Auxiliary List. Severestorm28 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be left as is. As it is still October 20. While the month has been unusually quiet, activity could persist into November, allowing the auxiliary list to be used. As last year, we'll keep the practice of revealing the first set of 3 names and if the 3rd name is used, reveal the next set. And if one name is used in that second list upon the season's end on November 30, then the others can be removed. Should Wanda form and no storms after it develop, then the auxiliary list can be removed. For now, leave it as is. Gumballs678 talk 14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – leave first six names currently posted. Drdpw (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this as well. I will update some other information as well later on. Severestorm28 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw and Tholme: First, I apologize for my previous edits. On my screen, the naming list displays five columns and "orphans" Wanda, so I thought I was correcting it back to three columns. Though, if I use my second monitor, it it displays seven columns. Is there a compromise that doesn't violate MOS but keeps at least relatively even columns? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This probably needs to be discussed at the project level. As every season article in each basin is potentially affected, we need a solution that can be implemented project wide. Drdpw (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR in this case for consistency. United States Man (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I know for sure: using tables to format columns is even more atrocious than using {{columns-list}}, mainly because you're locking the column width and count, completely disrespecting screen proportions of mobile users and users with large screens. If the goal is to keep stable column lengths, perhaps we can just shrink the column width?

• Ana
• Bill
• Claudette
• Danny
• Elsa
• Fred
• Grace
• Henri
• Ida
• Julian
• Kate
• Larry
• Mindy
• Nicholas
• Odette
• Peter
• Rose
• Sam
• Teresa
• Victor
• Wanda (unused)

Saves the headache of going against MOS:LTAB. Chlod (say hi!) 02:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could do this way, any other possible ideas, if there is a option. Severestorm28 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add(or something along these lines): "2021 marks the first time back to back seasons used up all 21 names on the hurricane list" 198.217.121.194 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Now noted in the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the nor'easter that became Wanda did have significant impact on the East Coast, would an article on the cyclone simply be "October 2021 nor'easter", or would this information be included in a Subtropical Storm Wanda article? JayTee🕊️ 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Wanda likely won't get a dedicated article due to not being expected to effect land at all. HavocPlayz — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocPlayz (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the nor'easter receives an article, Wanda would likely be listed in it and we would subsequently link it here. Wanda itself likely would not receive an article as it hasn't had any significant impacts since its formation. Gumballs678 talk 14:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gumballs, If the nor'easter receives an article (though I would question whether one is warranted), then Wanda would receive mention in its opening paragraph, as is the case for Tropical Depression Sixteen of the 2008 season in the October 2008 Central America floods article. I also concur with the stated reasons why Wanda will not likely get its own article. Drdpw (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw: I agree that Wanda itself is not notable enough for an article, I'm just curious if an article on the nor'easter would need to cover its entire meteorological history (including is subtropical phase), or if we could cut off at Wanda's formation. JayTee🕊️ 16:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should think the meteorological history section of an article on the nor'easter would include a paragraph covering the formation, greatest intensity, and dissipation of Wanda. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. United States Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that we would at least include a paragraph just summarizing the meteorological history and include the track on the nor'easter article, but i'm not too sure. Maybe something like how Columbus Day Storm of 1962 is structured (obviously the history of the extratropical storm would come first followed Wanda's, but just the general layout/ idea of the article as a format), but I am not too sure. I'll see what others say. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The system is the same, therefore impacts must be recorded regardless of cyclone power. Wanda deserves its own article, in addition that its subtropical and tropical structure has not caused any impact. Of the Lusophone Wikipedia, for example, a subtropical storm Raoni obtains an article of his own, the same impacts by those described, for example when it was an extratropical cyclone André L P Souza (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting an article, only if it is named Tropical Storm Wanda/2021 United States Nor'easter, like Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal where each storm had a separate section. Abowlingbulb (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the place to discuss an article for a nor'easter. While it happened to transition into now Tropical Storm Wanda, that itself is not sufficient enough to warrant Wanda having an article. As we are on the talkspace for tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic, discussing an article for a nor'easter seems out of place. As I mentioned earlier, should the nor'easter receive an article, it would likely mention Wanda and subsequently be linked back to this main article in Wanda's subsection. Gumballs678 talk 00:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly won't be using such a clunky, convoluted title here. For Amanda/Cristobal, we really didn't have any other choice. It was a single regeneration event that received two different names. This isn't the case with Wanda. It has only been given one name, so it will use a simple title for its article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wanda in the title due to lack of significance and not being the common name for the event. Noah^Talk 00:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wanda will be getting an article. Make no mistake about that. In fact, it already has a draft, which needs to be finished soon and published. It was more than significant enough as a nor'easter to warrant getting its own article, and the fact that it hasn't had any impacts as a named tropical system yet is completely irrelevant. As for the people who say that only the nor'easter period should be mentioned in the article, we cannot do that. As Wikipedia editors, we are obligated to include the storm's entire history, including both the nor'easter and tropical periods, and all of the relevant impacts. We don't get to cherry-pick and choose what gets included and what gets left out. It's either all or nothing. Everything about the storm must be included in its article. We need to present our readers with the complete story. BTW, any incomplete article with only the nor'easter portion or just the tropical portion would never make it to GA, let alone FA status, so we don't really have a choice. The only issue that needs to be settled is how we title the article, and which infobox we use. We have two options here. Either we take the Typhoon Freda option and give the page an EC format, or we use a Perfect Storm option and use a TC format. Either way, ALL of the relevant information on this storm must be included. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd opt for going with the EC format given that it became "Wanda" days after the damage was done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any article that is published on Wanda will get immediately merged back into this page, so it should be about the nor'easter and mention Wanda within that. Wanda itself is not enough to stand as an article. United States Man (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, sorry. The article exists: Tropical Storm Wanda (2021) 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevancy of Wanda not causing any impacts as a TC is relevant, because as a (S)TC, it has not. As a nor'easter it did, which is why this discussion was brought up. No one is cherry-picking information about Wanda nor the nor'easter. It was about how to include both into an article. If we're giving Wanda an article based on the fact that its precursor was a damaging nor'easter, then that's fine. If there's already a draft on Wanda that formats it as a TC and mentions its origins as a nor'easter (as the draft does), then the title should be "Tropical Storm Wanda", as it stands now. Gumballs678 talk 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It’s fine if it mentions the substantial history of the nor’easter and ultimate transition from extratropical to tropical. It just cannot be simply about the storm just before and after it acquired the name Wanda. There isn’t enough relevant information by itself to stand alone, no matter how much word fluff you use. United States Man (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. The article itself can be kept, however it should be restructured and renamed. The storm that did the damage was the Nor'easter that proceeded Wanda. It simply doesn't make sense to have an article on the tropical cyclone itself and mention the nor'easter, when the extra-tropical part is what we should be focusing and writing on. As such I support the Typhoon Freda approach for how the article should be formatted. It just makes sense. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Wanda should get its own article standalone. its notable enough to an extent as its the final name of the list and we wasted all 21 names. We should wait and see what Wanda does a post-tropical cyclone in the azores before we dedicate an article HavocPlayz — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocPlayz (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]