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]
  • @HavocPlayz: Wanda may not be notable, but its precursor was. I had no power for 4 days because of the nor'easter. Any storm that does that is definitely article-worthy. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats where the issue comes in. theres hardly enough things to put in impacts and aftermath since its so new. we could hold off till maybe the TCR or till more damage reports start coming in but i ain't removing it unless we get a consensus on that HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that an applicable example here would be Tropical Storm Leslie (2000). The storm barely affected land while tropical, but it had a costly precursor that caused nearly $1 billion in damage in southern Florida. The article discusses both the trough and Leslie in sufficient detail in the Met History, and the Impact section focuses almost exclusively on the trough. I feel that the Wanda article can stand as it is now, assuming that it retains the current detail it has about both the nor'easter's history and Wanda's. And the impact section can be similar to Leslie's (which is a GA), which focuses almost exclusively on its precursor. JayTee🕊️ 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Wanda will potentially get a article, because due to Leslie, I partially agree with this idea. However, there are lots of articles containing that the storm stayed offshore, and the storm gets an article. For example, Tropical Storm Colin 2010 dissipated before reaching Bermuda. Then how would Colin get an article and Wanda won't? Wanda impacted the U.S., then it might impact the Azores, which is a hundred miles away from Wanda. We can settle on this idea, but some other responses concerning to not create a article about Wanda is possible at this time. Severestorm28 talk 1:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: An article exists: Tropical Storm Wanda (2021); further discussion here is pointless. Drdpw (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]