Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Prediction from Tropical Storm Risk

Hi:

The link to the December 12th Tropical Storm Risk prediction leads nowhere. Either TSR has not issued its Extended forecast for 2020 and the text is bullshit, or the link is wrong. This should be verified.

Pierre cb (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

File:2020_Atlantic_hurricane_season_summary_map.png

Hello, I was wondering if someone could upload this file (just a plain picture of the Atlantic basin that we would normally use at the beginning of a picture showing all the storm path between the 6-hour intervals). Thank you! --Purplemountainman^{talk contribs} 01:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic 5-Day Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook

Could at any time be found here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php. Hogne (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

These outlooks are archived, in case we need to cite them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tropical Storm Arthur formed yesterday. I know because someone told me but I have no idea where information about Arthur is. 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. NHC is not in fact issuing advisories for any system IIRC. ~ AC5230 talk 00:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: 70/80 invest currently active (- AC)

Low Pressure Area

Hi: Should we add that an area of low pressure with thunderstorms and gusts has formed north-east of the Bahamas, with a high chance of formation according to the NHC? User: CodingCyclone (User talk: CodingCyclone:talk) 15:46 UTC, 15 May 2020

Nope. Not an actual tropical system yet, if it forms then it should be added. --YellowSkarmory (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Tropical depression now, has been added. Yay! CodingCyclone (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Article for Arthur

Will we be making an article for Tropical Storm Arthur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A11:4014:95D1:C270:C461:B681 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

To the user with the IP address that asked, I believe there is not enough damage info or serious enough impacts for Arthur to be made into an article, although I appreciate your thought on it. JoeMT615 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an draft article about Tropical Storm Arthur that is currently awaiting review. Draft:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020). INeedSupport ^😷 04:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Can we reach an agreement over how many months there should be on the timeline? It ain't worth it to have edit wars over petty stuff. Xyklone (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Do May to November. With the exception of Arthur, that's the standard setup. 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems obvious to include the entire season in the timeline when the season is specifically delineated (June-Nov) in the article. Plus a review of last year’s article history (Which included a May storm) shows that throughout June 2019, the timeline included the months up to Nov. While I did not go back to earlier years to check, I have been hanging out on these yearly pages for quite a few years now and I never remember a fight over the timeline. I believe showing the Time out to November is the standard and consensus. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to make the timeline from May to November, but my edits got reverted. I'm wondering why it is only from May to July, since the hurricane season runs from June (May this year) to November. Destroyeraa (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Prediction from Crown Weather Services

Hello!

Yesterday on March 10th the Crown Weather Services issued their first prediction of the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season and I was asking is it ok if I add the prediction in? HurricaneExpert192000 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would personally say no for various reasons. For starters, we have to remember that the market for seasonal forecasts has exploded in the Atlantic since 2005 and that we can not cover each and every seasonal forecast that is issued. As a result, we have to draw the line somewhere, have some standards and restrict it to ones who are well known and reliable per WP:Promo. I had personally never heard of Crown Weather Services and decided to google them and could not find any third party sources that proved that they are well known or notable. I also noticed that this is their fourth discussion about the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season and that the other three are located behind their paywall which makes them less reliable in my opinion than others.Jason Rees (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I am also a no. Crown Weather Services has a large crowd following, and they're certainly not new to the business, but they are not a reputable, qualified organization. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As isn't Force Thirteen, before anyone asks. ~ AC5230 talk 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Imagery Question

Will this current image of Bertha do?

Current image of bertha

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaiTheCyclone (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced it by a cropped version of it (well, 6 minutes earlier). Might actually be a bit too cropped, to be honest. If needs be, you can uncrop it a bit. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

just let people like TAM and Supportstorm create a better image than a poorly done crop of that FleurDeOdile 16:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I can hop on the EOSDIS imagery when I can get my hands on a good image. ~ AC5230 talk 17:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(re to FleurDeOdile) I've acknowledged that it was perhaps a bit too cropped. However, why don't you make a crop that fulfills your requirement rather than let others do that? Also, an image (even a bad one) is better than none, so smacking "bad image" as reason for removing it is nonsense in my opinion (well, unless it doesn't show the subject in question). Also, leave it categorized on Commons. Removing the category doesn't help a thing. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pressures listed for TC's

Why are we using 991 mbar for Arthur and 1004 mbar for Bertha? These are not the numbers the National Hurricane Center listed for these cyclones 2605:6000:1A11:4014:18EC:90B0:F9A3:FFDD (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We are using those pressures as the minimum atmospheric pressure for each of the systems. According to the NHC, Arthur's lowest pressure was 991 mbar and Bertha's was 1004.Destroyeraa (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I get a link to this, if it's no trouble? 2605:6000:1A11:4014:7461:4AC0:1903:DCDB (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Well...the tropical cyclone report hasn't been released for Arthur yet. Bertha:https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2020/al02/al022020.update.05271329.shtml? Destroyeraa (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Article for Bertha?

Does Tropical Storm (in my opinion - subtropical) Bertha warrant a separate article? It caused some moderate flooding in Florida and South Carolina.Destroyeraa (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

DO ITTTTTTTTT!! Start it as Draft:Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) til it’s ready. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have started the draft 🌀HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not good at drafting long articles, but I'm ready to help edit when its ready.Destroyeraa (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Put Invest 92L in other systems?

I want to put this notable invest in other systems just because

1. This is a may system with a 60% chance of delevopment.

2. This caused a lot of attention in the media

3. we could have got a 3rd off season may storm.

I understand if you guys can't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.19.58 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. We don't put invests in articles. 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Invests are not tropical cyclones. Plus, there are lots of other invests over several decades that has a higher chance of formation but did not develop into a tropical depression or storm. Should it be classified as a potential tropical cyclone, it would be added though. INeedSupport ^😷 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding to those 3 points: 1) it's not rare to see a system have a 60% chance or higher and end up not forming. For a 60% chance of formation, taking that at face value, the odds of that are greater than 1 in 3. 2) WP:NOTNEWS, not everything that's reported on in the media warrants inclusion. 3) the fact remains that it didn't happen. Since the system is not a tropical cyclone, there is no basis for inclusion in an article about tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean in 2020. (In fact, the only reason we put potential tropical cyclones under "Other systems" is because they take up a space in the NHC's numbering system.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is a PTC that did not develop

If a case arises (as happened in 2017) where a PTC has advisories issued but does not develop into a TC, can we have our season summary set up something like this? I specifically ask because I'm imagining a scenario where we get TD 9, PTC 10, and TD 11, but the article only says TD 9 and TD 11.

2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Name	Dates	Category	Winds	Pressure
Harvey	August 17 - September 1	Category 4 Hurricane	130 mph	937 mbar
Ten	August 27 - 29	Disturbance	40 mph	1006 mbar
Irma	August 30 - September 12	Category 5 Hurricane	180 mph	914 mbar
Jose	September 5 - 22	Category 4 Hurricane	155 mph	938 mbar

We could use the pressures and dates the NHC gives in their report for this information. Also, can we add ACE calcs into the table? We have a whole talk article about ACE cals and yet hardly ever mention them in the actual articles.

Lastly, is there a better place to put these things for discussion than the 2020 hurricane season talk article? 2605:6000:1A11:44EE:BD55:D164:14CB:EF60 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not give failed potential tropical cyclones their own sections here. We instead put them all under an "Other systems" section. This is because they are disturbances, not tropical cyclones, and the only reason they are special is they happen to pose a wind threat to land. Otherwise, we would have to give every invest a section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, my opinion is if a PTC fails but has advisories issued by the NHC and watches/warnings raised, and gets a number, it's good enough to get a section of its own. I will follow the requirements as set by the WikiProject. ~ AC5230 talk 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is currently not a PTC active or a failed PTC in the Atlantic right now. However, I understand your question. If there is a PTC that is failed, put it in a section called "Other Systems", such as in 2019 Pacific hurricane season Destroyeraa (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Forecast map

The forecast map for ts arthur is from when it was a depression; can i update it to its present forecast map? Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Most people were sleeping when you asked, so just be patient. INeedSupport ^😷 17:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL Destroyeraa (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Article for Cristobal

Since Cristobal is going to have major impacts, and has already had some minor impacts such as heavy rain, I created a draft here: Draft:Tropical Storm Cristobal (2020)Destroyeraa (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Great! I can help! CodingCyclone (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Destroyeraa (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone move the draft to main article space?Destroyeraa (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I requested deletion of the redirect so I can move it, @Destroyeraa:. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I have moved the draft content into the main article space and removed the redirect Destroyeraa (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's called a copy and paste move. Please contact an admin to merge the page histories of the draft and the article. See your talk page. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 13:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: Why does Cristobal need an article? Surely it would be better to cover its impacts so far in an article talking about the flooding from Amanda and Cristobal rather then seperating the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge Cristobal and Amanda?

This is a bit of an unusual situation, but perhaps should Amanda and Cristobal's articles be merged? They shared the same mid-level circulation, and Cristobal added to Amanda's floods. Just throwing it out there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: No, since the NHC still considers Amanda to have dissipated over Central America. For the whole discussion, see Crossover or not?. Destroyeraa (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We are aware that NHC considers Amanda to have dissipated over CA, but that doesn't mean that their impacts are separate. That is why I think we should combine the impacts under a flood article. If and when Cristobal impacts the US, we can note that Cristobal contributed towards the 2020 Central American floods and include some details on it.Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW news sources appear to attribute flooding in El Salvador and Guatemala to Amanda, while flooding in Mexico is attributed to Cristobal. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is not a specific name for the floods. In addition, most of the floods in Guatemala and El Salvador is Amanda's, while Cristobal mainly affected Mexico. Keep the articles separate. Destroyeraa (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They're the same storm but are being kept separate due to internal policy at the NHC. Impacts are completely inseparable at this point. El Salvador has at least 27 confirmed fatalities due to the combined effects of the storms. At least 16 were confirmed from Amanda but the other 11 can't be split without violating WP:OR. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sharing a MLC doesn't mean that they are the same tropical cyclone, since tropical cyclones are defined by the presence of a LLCC, so if they shared the same low-level closed circulation this statement would have a better standing, but that's not the case. ABC paulista (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean we have to run with what we have here. It's worth taking the info as is reported and then revising a year's end. Taking preliminary information from the NHC and then revising at year's end is just a generally assumed risk of making an article before the final reports come out. For now though the storms are considered separate and sources will likely try to separate them as best as can be done, and that's really all we can do until we get season end reports with revised figures. There are borderline cases like this all the time, and the numbers eventually get sorted out to satisfaction. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be merged when they aren't considered the same storm. Yes, both affected the same general region, but the merging would only make sense if the article was heavily focused on the impacts, in which I don't agree. Also, tropical storms Alma and Arthur were part of a very similar situation in 2008, and both have their own standalone articles and they are fine that way. I can see the same being applied for Amanda and Cristobal. ABC paulista (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Alma and Arthur are two different storms. The remnants of Alma combined with two tropical waves to form Arthur whereas Amanda simply became Cristobal, there was no other system involved. The only reason they're separated is because of interbasin naming policies. Meteorologically they are a single storm which makes this infuriating. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That was what they stated on the reports, but on Arthur's first discussion they explicitally stated that they weren't considered the same system because Alma's LLC dissipated inland, just like what happened to Amanda. Usually the agencies consider systems to be the same only when they developed from the same LLC, like stated in Bret's report regarding Greg. There were instances where they did consider systems to be the same when they shared the same MLC, like 2017's Lee or 1986's Georgette , but such instances are really uncommon. ABC paulista (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If a system loses a closed LLC but regenerates from the MLC and no other systems are involved, it will always be classified as one storm if it's within a single basin Example: Dorian 2012 was a disturbance for 6 days but nothing interacted with it so when a new LLC formed it was called one storm. The only reason Amanda and Cristobal are separate is because of the crossover, it's an incredibly stupid policy. Mid/upper vorticity was continuous between them. James Franklin even acknowledged the bizarre and conflicting policies. Regarding Alma and Arthur, Arthur's TCR clarifies that multiple systems were involved in its formation rather than just Alma. This is why TD Ten and Katrina in 2005 are separate systems. The mid-level remnants of TD Ten combined with a tropical wave to spawn Katrina (TD Ten TCR). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, NHC and the other RSMCs aren't consistent with their policies regarding tropical cyclone's regeneration and/or crossovers (For instance, 2004's Ivan merged with a frontal low over the US, according to its report, but was considered the same system when it reformed over GOM days later, mostly because it mantained a identifiable LLC when it was a remnant), but for crossovers NHC seem to be a bit more consistent requiring a continuous LLC for such. Just sharing the same MLC (like Katia and Otis in 2017, Trudy and Hanna in 2014, Alma and Arthur in 2008 preliminarly, Franklin and Jova in 2017, Bret and Greg in 1993 and others) doesn't seem to be sufficient. ABC paulista (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The NHC clearly considers them to be a single storm with the ATCF for Cristobal including the track of Amanda, they just have it labeled as GENESIS004 since it's under 03L. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe they reconsidered these points as part of Cristobal's life rather than Amanda's. My take on this is that they just acknowledged that Cristobal's percursor formed from Amanda's remnants, not that they are the same storm. ABC paulista (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think perhaps we might want to wait for the Tropical Cyclone Reports on Amanda and Cristobal, or on other academic studies on these storms. I don't think we have enough definitive information yet to make a judgment, nor do we have to make a judgment right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Also, Tropical Storm Amanda-Cristobal doesn't sound right. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Crossover or not?

Just wanted to be sure on what we are saying here in the case of Tropical Depression Three. The map including the total season tracks shows a combined track for Pacific TS Amanda, the resulting remnants of the system after it fell below depression intensity, and the depression related to the remnants. The storm is also referred to as "Tropical Depression Three (Amanda)." IS this all to suggest that this is a crossover system from the Atlantic that still is referred to as Amanda under the new criteria for crossover storm naming conventions, or is this just an error? DarkSide830 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of Amanda in TD3's naming was more a initiative from Cyclonebiskit based on the system's ATCF, which I personally don't fully agree. It's a bit murky by now how the NHC is handling this, but my take from this is that all Amanda's mentions regarding TD3 is because this system formed from the same cyclone shortly after Amanda's LLC dissipated, and in all advisories and warnings until now they explicitally stated that a new depression would form from Amanda's MLC, not a regeneration of the former. So I would have waited until the best tracks and/or reports to determine whether Amanda/TD3 is considered the same storm or not, unless soon the NHC retroactively states that they are actually the same. ABC paulista (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ABC paulista, DarkSide830, and Cyclonebiskit: The NHC said that Amanda's mid-level circulation still remained intact through its trek through Central America. However, its low-level citculation dissipated. Other sources say that Amanda did not dissipate, but I don't fully agree. Probably have to wait until the tropical cyclone reports come out.Destroyeraa (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I guess as long as there is something of a consensus on how the system is being considered. Just as long as we keep updated on how it is being referred to and keeping the naming and the tracks consistent with one another. To that end though the debate has somewhat spilled over into the overall season summary map and while there has been focus on Amanda/TD3/Cristobal Bertha's track has been adversely affected, with the Amanda version showing Bertha through 05/27 12Z and the TD3/Cristobal version showing the track through only 05/28 12z. To add to that neither shows the full track through 05/29 00Z that we have for Bertha overall. Don't know if I should break this concern out into another talk section, but wanted at least to make sure it was made note of. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's blatantly a continuous crossover but the NHC is annoyingly contradictory on it. I firmly believe there's sufficient evidence for us to have them combined but if consensus is against that, I won't argue any further. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I was going to point out in my previous examination of the list of crossovers that I hadn't seen any instance where there had be degeneration past TD level during crossing, but Hermine seems to have during the 2010 season, though that is even more special of a case due to the fact that even though it started in the Pacific, it didn't become named until it reached the Gulf. However, even in the case of that system (which I recognize the debate on should be settled by now) there were lacking other sources considering it a true crossover system, and given it wasn't named in its starting basin its up for debate on what the NHC's thoughts on it were. (unless they referenced it otherwise as a true crossover system and I simply am not finding it) IN theory though when you remove the fact that Amanda was named in the Pacific, the two systems compare well in that way. I just think given the naming conventions that now exist for these systems and that the foremost authorities consider it now Cristobal (and thus not an official crossover storm under the new conventions) that it would make more sense to consider it as such, (and any other system that we are not sure about for the sake of being consistent) though if the consensus here were otherwise then I'd be willing to support it. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hermine's case differs from Amanda, DarkSide830. According to the NHC, as stated on Hermine's report, Eleven-E's LLC survived the crossover and, as stated on Eleven-E's report, "moved into Atlantic basin to become Tropical Storm Hermine", while in Amanda's case they stated that its LLC dissipated over Guatemala. Hermine's case is also backed up by the fact that the last point's coordinates of Eleven-E's best track coincides with the first point's coordinates of Hermine's best track. But to be fair, in the operational data the NHC considered Eleven-E and Hermine to be distinct storms, only changing their opinion when the reports were published, so the same could happen with Amanda and Cristobal, but for now it's mere speculation. ABC paulista (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Since they were the same overall system, they should be treated as such IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I had gone back and checked on Hermine right after I had said that but why I still think Hermine doesn't quite fit i with the bunch is how the TCR refers to Hermine vs other crossovers. In the last three storms with reports, (Cesar-Douglas, Hermine, and Otto) Hermine is the only one that doesn't say anything about a crossover before part a., which suggests to me that it was not considered a crossover as it probably would have otherwise been considered as such in this section. Also, in previous scenarios where there have been two reports (Cesar-Douglas and Gert) you have generally seen this fact quickly brought up at the start of the report, something Hermine's report is lacking. It's certainly not an ironclad case, but the fact that Hermine seemingly at least seems like a loose case as a crossover makes the renaming of Amanda to Cristobal a moot point. I do agree on the revisions though, they do revise this sort of thing at later dates, so its possible they combine the two, but I think we have to go off calling it what the NHC is saying it should be until we know that it should have been named otherwise. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

DarkSide830, Hermine's case differs a little from the other ones you cited by the fact that the other ones were continuously tropical cyclones during the crossover, while Eleven-E dropped below TC status before reestrengning into Hermine, which can explain some of the inconsistencies noted, but the phrasing and their beast track seals the deal for me. But honestly, the NHC has never been too consistent on how they handle these situations, with little or late mentions of the crossover also found on cases such as Cesar, Joan, Diana, Debby and Dolly. Actually, IMO Amanda/Cristobal case resembles more Alma/Arthur from 2008, and on that case the NHC explicitally stated in Arthur's first advisory that Alma and Arthur were distinct storms because Alma's LLC dissipated and Arthur developed from a new one, just like Amanda/Cristobal. ABC paulista (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@DarkSide830 and ABC paulista:Well said. I realize that they (NHC) change a lot of things in their tropical cyclone reports. For example, last year they upgraded Tropical Storm Imelda from 40 to 45 mph;Barry's minimal pressure was changed and its path was cut short. Yeah, there is a slight change Amanda become Cristobal. Another interesting thing is that according to the report and Wikipedia Article, Eleven-E became Hermine. However, look at this map. In there, it says that Eleven-E dissipated into a remnant low or an extratropical cyclone before being Hermine. Destroyeraa (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: It's not uncommon for a tropical cyclone to dissipate and reform during its lifetime. It happened with hurricanes such as Mitch, Ivan, Nadine and others. This situation eas seen even in some crossovers, like Georgette or Genevieve. ABC paulista (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's technically not true due to terminology. The reason that these systems reformed was that they did not fully dissipate before they redeveloped into depression level or greater. Because each of these systems still remained organized enough, they were not considered fully dissipated. The Alma/Arthur case works well here, where it was clearly the system that was once Alma that spawned Arthur, but the storm was considered to have dissipated at 30 / 1800, then reformed into a system with a new identity on 31 / 0000. Given we are working off the information that we have been provided that Amanda had dissipated over Guatemala. While it would make sense to assume that any nameable storm related to a single system would retain its name, you can also see a system redevelop with new characteristics, or one area of disturbed weather can even facilitate the development of multiple official disturbances. This in mind, we really have to go off dissipation being the one true end for a system. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Although each terminology has its own definition, in reality the agencies frequently interchange them. Its not uncommon to see terminologies like "dissipation", "degeneration", "open through", "become a remnant", "become post-tropical" and others being used to describe the same situation. ABC paulista (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't believe they are as interchangeable as you are saying. In my experience, true "dissipation" is always the end of a system, (unless it merges with another system or an extratropical cyclone, but that doesn't really apply here, and may constitute another way of saying the system in question no longer exists) but any of these other examples also must be followed by the storm "dissipating" in name. There are frequent examples of storms becoming post-tropical, but being designated post-tropical still tends to follow by an official designation of the post-tropical portion of the storm having itself dissipated. Also, you mention "remnants," which is the key point here. Clearly it was the remnants of Amanda that are now constituting Cristobal, but "remnants" don't ever reform into a system with the same name. In the case of Amanda, the storm dissipated, then the remnants reformed into a new system from the same weather pattern. The fact that the NHC tracked Amanda as its so-called remnants before the formation of Cristobal shows they believe they were two distinct systems that simply generated from the same area of storms. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to NHC, 2013's Dorian did reform into a system with the same name after becoming a remnant. And 2017's Lee did regenerate after dissipation. Just 2 examples to show that the terms are not that set in stone. ABC paulista (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of these instances. Guess you are right there. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Note on strongest storm

It's clear that Arthur belongs as the strongest storm at the current time, but would it be worth making a note on this section a la the 2017 season page where Maria was noted as the strongest storm despite having a lower sustained windspeed? Here it seems there is a tie for the distinction of the highest sustained windspeed between Arthur and Cristobal, but Arthur is the strongest storm due to having the lowest pressure. A la how the 2017 page has a note on strength, should this page have a note of sorts as well? (even if we are certain to see a storm that blows both systems out of the water in due time) DarkSide830 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dissipation

When, exactly, is a storm dubbed as 'dissipated'? 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 12:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The most convenient definition is when it stops being a tropical or subtropical cyclone. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Which Cristobal's already done. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. I'm pretty sure dissipation doesn't occur until after another step in the cyclone's "lifecycle" so to speak occurs. The next step tends to vary a bit based on environmental conditions, but I believe in the common case of becoming extratropical, the storm isn't considered to have dissipated until after that. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that a system can continue to persist as an extratropical cyclone, convectionless swirl or otherwise, but using the duration in which a tropical cyclone was a tropical system is the most convenient and consistent way of defining its lifetime (and similarly for subtropical cyclones). When a system turns extratropical it can be considered to have dissipated as a tropical cyclone (though not as a weather system). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Cristobal

Cristobal Killed 4 People Making it 9 But Stronger than Arthur Because 65mph winds IvanGamezz (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What source are you seeing this from, out of curiosity? It's important because its pressure that is used to gauge intensity, (which is why i referenced the note on the 2017 season in the above thread) not winds. Arthur's 991 mb beats Cristobal's 992, but if the source notes its less than Arthur's then it can be considered the strongest. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@DarkSide830:That information is considered false unless there is a reliable source supporting it. I have reverted the edits. Destroyeraa (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dolly

The NHC has now released advisors on tropical storm Dolly. Still seems like it shows it as subtropical depression 04 however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.19.58 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tropical Storm Fay (2020)

Because someone already tried to make a Fay article, here, let's work together on this draft article. There are probably some impacts in the SE US. I wouldn't be surprised if there are beach closures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Gonzalo

Now that there is a new Gonzalo, should we move Hurricane Gonzalo to Hurricane Gonzalo (2014)?. There currently is an existing redirect. I want to ask for the consensus before trying to ask for deletion of the redirect. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think given this system hasn't reached hurricane intensity yet it's not an issue, especially with the redirect already existing. I think if this system becomes of hurricane intensity then an exploration into such a name change would be important. However given 2014 is the one that actually had reached hurricane intensity and has an article it isn't a huge consideration yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarkSide830: Yeah. It really looks like Gonzalo is going to affect at least the Windward Islands, but we have to see if that warrants an article. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And it does look like it will hit hurricane intensity too, so it's worth monitoring closely. Maybe we hit the name change on 2014 and then look to write that article. Given the likelihood that the storm won't survive the weekend it may not be a long enough article, but even Arthur was able to get an article to satisfaction so its very likely Gonzalo could get one too. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarkSide830: I created a draft, Draft:Tropical Storm Gonzalo (2020). Bit premature and only has a bit of info, but may be the need to create a full-on article in the near future. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 21:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rivaling 2005?

Off topic

Could this season be rivaling 2005? It's had three record-breaking earliest named storms (Cristobal, Edouard, and Fay), had two off-season storms, and is generally looking like a hyper-hyper-hyperactive season. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC) In the frequency of storms, so far yes, but certainly not in intensity. Each of the first six named storms for this year failed to reach hurricane intensity, while by Franklin in 2005 you already had three hurricanes and two major hurricanes. DarkSide830 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Well only time will tell Storm Lover 2020 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @Storm Lover 2020: The season is forecast to be hyperactive, with 20 named storms and up to 10 hurricanes! Destroyeraa 15:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Okay, that is crazy-active! 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC) That's not exactly a consensus though. most of the recent predictions are a little under that. consensus is high activity, but not hyperactive. (and worth also noting that 2005 was a bit beyond what is typically considered "hyperactive") DarkSide830 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC) While I do think this season will be hyperactive, I don't think it will rival 2005. Most predictions are usually predicting around 15-20 storms. Plus, we haven't had a hurricane yet, even with 6 storms. The conditions are looking better than 2005's though.HurricaneIcy (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC) That makes sense. Also if TD Seven becomes Gonzalo then it will be just under the record for seventh named storm, behind 2005's Gert. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion, please keep speculation and such to external forums (e.g.) instead of talk pages. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline consistency

So, this isn't necessarily an issue with THIS article but idk where to put this:

So, when looking at the timelines in past articles, the amount of storms on the timeline before they use ":barset skip:, which starts it again from the top of the timeline for storms after the command, is different between articles.

2019 had 9 storms before the first :barset skip: 2018 had 9 as well 2017 had 8 storms 2016 had 10 storms 2015 had 7 storms 2014 also had 7 storms 2013 had 8 storms 2012 also had 8 storms

Like, there is no inter-article consistency; and we should establish a specific number for the amount of storms before the timeline goes back to the top for storms Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

PTC Nine; can you guys actually stop?

I don't understand why people have repeatedly (like 4 times today alone) added PTC Nine into the "Storms" and "Seasonal Summary" section, which I've had to delete every. single. time. It isn't a tropical cyclone, and we've set the precedent that Potential Tropical Cyclones do NOT go into the "Storms" section as they aren't tropical cyclones. And wouldn't that be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well as it isn't guaranteed to form, yet it is going into the storms section anyways? I really don't want to start an edit war but these people just keep on re-adding it. We do not include PTCs into the article unless they fail to develop, and even then they go to an "Other Systems" section like we see in the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season article with PTC 10. I'm just getting sick and tired of people constantly adding it back after like 10 minutes. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclone of Foxes: The consensus is to give it a full section for now in order to wait and see if it develops further. If not then it gets chucked into an other systems section.Jason Rees (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, could it go into the "Other Systems" section now and we can move it if/when it becomes a tropical cyclone? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Its probably easier to do it this way since there are watches and warnings issued.Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

potential tropical cyclones, by their nature of only being issued on when they are a threat to land, often have effects on land. That is why they should be treated just like other storms, especially about they are active. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Page protected

I protected this page because of this dispute (pursuant to a request at RFPP). Full protection was required because at least one extended-confirmed editor is involved. However, I realize that this is not ideal due to the developing, current nature of the article. If the involved parties, especially @FleurDeOdile and Cyclone of Foxes, will agree to abide by a consensus here, I can remove the protection sooner than the 48h it's currently set for. –Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: this is really unnecessary; the consensus of WP:WPTC (established at Talk:2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_3#Ground_rules_on_"potential_tropical_cyclones" for example) has been the current setup, wherein potential tropical cyclones do get their own section when they form, and if they do not become full-fledged tropical cyclones then they go into "other systems" rather than having their own section. They do not get their own listing in the timeline or season summary. Cyclone of Foxes was unaware of this consensus and now is, so I really do not see the need for protection, especially as 09L is rapidly evolving as I type this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: From a strict policy perspective, it was indeed necessary as there was clear edit warring going on. That's why I'm looking at getting some active agreement from the participants that it won't resume when I remove the protection. You mention that Cyclone of Foxes was now aware of the consensus, is there anything you can point me at to indicate they've agreed to respect it? –Darkwind (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: Not even; in situations where only one editor is really edit warring against the preexisting consensus, the preferred route is to warn or block them, and not hinder the work of everyone else. This edit summary seems pretty clear in understanding the consensus, and this page had moved on from the edit war in question.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: We can have this discussion on my talk page if you want to lecture me about how I review RFPP requests; I have an entire paragraph worth of response which I'll omit from here as off-topic.

Thank you for pointing out that edit summary. Having nothing else to go on, and given the nature of the article, I'll reduce it to semi-protection for the remainder of the original 48 hours -- I believe that level is still necessary as IP and new editors were also removing the material in question. –Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: Once the storm becomes Isaias, a named tropical storm, can you please remove the page protection. There will be no more PTC Nine anymore. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Add detail for Tropical Storm Gonzalo's impact on Trinidad and Tobago, as a fallen tree damaged a health center in Tobago and damaged one home in Trinidad.

Source (and other details): https://ttweathercenter.com/tropical-storm-gonzalos-impact-on-tt/ Trini Wiki Editor (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaias

Hello. Can someone delete the redirect Tropical Storm Isaias so I can move Draft:Tropical Storm Isaias to the redirect that is currently holding the title? Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Which sounds better?

For the time being, as there may end up being a more notable fact for the lede intro as the season progresses, would it sound better to mention that 2020 is the first season to feature nine tropical storms before August 1, or that 2020 is the first season to have ten tropical cyclones before August 1? --Undescribed (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ten tropical cyclones is better in my opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Both can be okay, too. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Either is okay, though Ten tropical cyclones is a more inclusive statement. Drdpw (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems like we're going with the former. In that case then, should we mention TD ten as the earliest tenth cyclone in that system's section? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be nice, but may be original research. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Image for TD 10

I've been noticing some edit warring going on with TD 10's image. I first changed the image because the previous image was of Invest 93L before genesis, not of TD 10 itself. I admit I changed it to a pretty trash image, and I thank @Hurricaneboy23: for helping me find a true-color image of 10. However, looking at it, all of the images for 10L are not very clear, excluding those images for 93L. Guess we have to deal with it. @45.181.171.14: can you please stop changing the images for TCs? Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 16:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that 45.181.171.14 is the same IP as 177.72.48.196. Both of them do not-so-helpful editing in hurricanes. --🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Great lakes cyclone

I was looking through some sat images on NASA worldview then I stumbled across a subtropical like system slightly east of the great lakes.https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-94.728515625,32.326171875,-60.978515625,50.923828125&t=2020-07-11-T19%3A33%3A26Z&z=1&ici=3&icd=1&l=Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor If you users know any other knowledge of this please reply and I want to see if this can be in other systems ( very unlikely ) or just get it's own page like Hurricane Huron form 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorgan 56 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is extratropical, which means it can't even go in the other systems section. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not accept original analysis from individual editors. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It is actually the extratropical remnants of Fay, so no. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's a different system, HH03. I remember watching a low spin eastward over Lake Erie on radar before making landfall near Erie, where I live, prompting a flood warning... around that period. I was on vacation down southward, though. So... it's likely not Fay, to say the least. Could be wrong. ~ AC5230 talk 21:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles for new cyclones

Anyone making an article for TS Laura and TD 14 yet? Love to help.ChessEric (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick search and I didn't find any drafts. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I created the redirects for both Laura and Marco, already been impacts, both are expected to be a hurricane. Articles would probably be justified once they intensify to hurricanes. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and ChessEric: Draft for Marco created - Draft:Tropical Storm Marco (2020). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

can we talk about it on the talk page I made? I like hurricanes (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

also, somebody made an article for Laura I like hurricanes (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

that's very helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:12C0:C100:CC78:E86A:A334:2279 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Formatting for Record Earliest Named Storms

Just a suggestion/question. Is there a way that maybe down the line, we format the lead to better fit the records about Cristobal, Edouardo-Marco becoming their respective earliest forming named storms? I feel the way it's written now just seems wordy, and if it continues to happen, then it will get wordier, I think. Maybe something like, "Throughout the season, various storms set earliest formation records", and then name some (doesn't have to be all) of them?Gumballs678 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The season is, without question, hyperactive. Maybe we could create a new section called "Statistics". 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That would work Gumballs678 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat and Gumballs678: This season has a lot of named storms, but is not “hyperactive”. Hyperactive means that the season has an ACE over 200, like the 2005 and 2017 seasons. This season featured a lot of weak and short-lived storms that are mainly not notable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I believe Chicdat was more referring to the fact that the season is hyperactive in terms of activity, not overall ACE. Obviously, yes, the season's ACE doesn't currently meet the threshold for hyperactivity. The point of this thread was to introduce some way to mention the earliest formation records of the current ten storms that have set them, as the way they are formatted in the lead, makes the lead appear wordy. That's why I like Chicdat's suggestion on a section called "Statistics" or something along those lines to still be able to include the formation records, without it appearing wordy in the lead.

@Gumballs678: I agree, since there are more record-breaking storms this season than non record-breaking storms. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Awesome, how do we want to set it up? Formatting wise? Should we put in the chart that shows the formation record?Gumballs678 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: A simple chart should do, with the left column showing the previous record and storm, the center column showing the current record, and the right column is the refs. A second central column may be needed if a a current record is broken in the future.

Storm formation records of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Previous record date and storm	Current record date and storm	References
Colin	Cristobal
Emily	Edouard
Luis	Laura

~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Works for me. I suppose the final question is then, how do we lead-in the chart? It would look weird if we create this new section and then just have a chart for it. We could do a simple summary of it, unless you suggest a better idea Gumballs678 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a variation of the table at List of Atlantic hurricane records#Earliest formation records by storm number ...

Earliest formation records by storm number set during the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season:

Formation records set during the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season
Storm number	Earliest		Next earliest
	Name	Date of formation	Name	Date of formation
3	Cristobal	June 2, 2020	Colin	June 5, 2016
5	Edouard	July 6, 2020	Emily	July 11, 2005
6	Fay	July 9, 2020	Franklin	July 21, 2005
7	Gonzalo	July 22, 2020	Gert	July 24, 2005
8	Hanna	July 24, 2020	Harvey	August 3, 2005
9	Isaias	July 30, 2020	Irene	August 7, 2005
10	Josephine	August 13, 2020	Jose	August 22, 2005
11	Kyle	August 14, 2020	Katrina	August 24, 2005
12	Laura	August 21, 2020	Luis	August 29, 1995
13	Marco	August 22, 2020	Maria	September 2, 2005
			Lee	September 2, 2011

  Indicates tie for earliest / next earliest formation date

— Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I had started creating one, but I like that one better. Looks clean. If you wanna add it to the page, you can.Gumballs678 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: This table looks better! @Gumballs678: I suggest that we start out with a

See also: List of Atlantic hurricane records § Earliest formation records by storm number

, then something leading in. Maybe like "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season produced ___ storms that broke the previous records for storm formation. The chart (below/to the right/left) shows ... I also suggest changing the heading to "Records". ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Works fine for me. What about you, @Drdpw:? Gumballs678 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678 and Drdpw: I think this section should go under the storm names section as a subheading. I think that fits more than it having a section of its own, it's just a table and a few sentences. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa and Drdpw: I agree. If we're only going to do a table and then just a few sentences, it doesn't really need to warrant its own section. Putting it under storm names is fine with me. Gumballs678 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

having a template of that is completely pointless and breaks consistency. there is a reason why no season articles have such templatesFleurDeOdile 01:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: Then where would you suggest it be placed? The reason it was created is because there are now ten storms that set formation records and if we keep them in the lead, it may only get wordier and unnecessarily long if more storms break more formation records. Also, I'm not sure how it's not consistent? Is it because that no other article has it? If that's case, no other season article has required one because something like this is unprecedented. We did earlier suggest that an entirely new section be created for such a thing, but I still don't think we should anymore because it would only be a sentence or two. Gumballs678 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, sounds good to me I like hurricanes (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: This year is a special case, with so many record-breaking storms. There is no guideline whatsoever about article consistency, and this was already decided between me, @Gumballs678 and Drdpw:. Stop removing the table, as it is there for a reason. Calling it spam is rather ridiculous and disruptive. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should not be added until there is a broad consensus to do so as per WP:BRD.. Drdpw (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Right now there is a clear consensus of 3 to 1, with 3 for the table and 1 against. Fleur’s objections don’t not justify removing the table, as there is no guideline on WPTC/S saying that all season articles have to be the same, with no additions. 2020 is a special case, you see, as there are 10 record-breaking storms, having to list them in the lead is wordy and boring. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The table certainly seems better than trying to write it out as sentences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

make that 4-1 I like hurricanes (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. 5 to 1 🌀HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the table serves as a good visual supplement to the prose, however an entire section based on records is undue weight and violates WP:NOTSTATS. I believe the use of a subsection for records in WP:WPTC/S has been deprecated following the FA review for 2005 AHS (see here), in favour of writing them into the season summary. Also, to newer users, please take note that Wikipedia operates by consensus and not vote-counting. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: So, just to make sure I'm reading and understanding this correctly, you support the table, but not in the way it had been placed in the article? Gumballs678 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: yes, that would be correct. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The table could be quite useful for providing more detailed information on the records so that the prose can be kept concise. Rattling off every single formation record that was broken gets monotonous so simply stating that "records for earliest formation of the season's X, Y, Z storms were set" in prose is ideal. The breakdown of those records and the previous record surpassed is more easily conveyed through a table. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: Where you would then suggest it be placed within the article, so that it is not violating any policy, and flows within the article. If putting it under "storm names" doesn't work, then perhaps, maybe in the seasonal summary section, like you mentioned in your initial post. Gumballs678 (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Season summary is 100% where the table should be going. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a good idea to include this table as this season could be record-breaking in terms of earliest storm formations. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 07:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should also add a column that is like the one in the table of this revision in the section "Rapid formation". It could look like this:

Early formation of storms in 2020

Storm #	Formation Day	Name	Previous Record	Difference
1	May 16	Arthur	January 3, 1938	+117 days
2	May 27	Bertha	May 17, 1887	+10 days
3	June 2	Cristobal	Colin - June 5, 2016	-3 days
4	June 22	Dolly	Danielle - June 19, 2016	+3 days
5	July 4	Edouard	Emily - July 11, 2005	-7 days
6	July 9	Fay	Franklin - July 21, 2005	-12 days
7	July 22	Gonzalo	Gert - July 24, 2005	-2 days
8	July 24	Hanna	Harvey - August 3, 2005	-12 days
9	July 30	Isaias	Irene - August 7, 2005	-8 days
10	August 11	Josephine	Jose - August 22, 1995	-11 day
11	August 14	Kyle	Katrina - August 24, 2005	-10 days
12	August 21	Laura	Luis - August 29, 1995	-8 days
13	August 22	Marco	Maria - September 2, 2005	-11 days

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I don't think that's necessary, as Arthur Bertha and Dolly DC didn't set any records for formation. There's just the problem of where to put it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it in the sense that it shows how many days a record was close to being set, or was set, but I agree with @Destroyeraa:. We don't have a place to put it. Gumballs678 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I too don't think that's necessary to add Arthur, Bertha or Dolly, as they didn't set a record for formation; I also find the "difference of days" column unnecessary, as people can look at the stated dates and add or subtract for themselves. I do like where Cyclonebiskit put the table, in the Seasonal summary section. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at Special:Diff/941493192. It was like that. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is Lee listed in this table as tying with Maria? Lee was the 12th named storm for that year, not the 13th. 38.108.53.234 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the article 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season#Unnamed tropical storm, there was an additional weak tropical storm that developed shortly before Lee. It was not recognized until post-season analysis and therefore not named, so the name/number sequence afterward is off by one. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I had missed that. 38.108.53.234 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Marco Article

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 think Marco is currently notable enough to have an articlle of its own as it is a hurricane and threatening to make a hurricane landfall in Texas or Lousiana, with maajor inpacts possible. So can someone make the page Draft:Hurricane Marco (2020) so we can start adding thing on it? Also. a reminder, Hurricane Marco of 1996 should be renamed to Hurricane Marco (1996) once the article on current Marco is officially created. DavidTheMeteorologist🌦❄️🌪 - 7:41 p.m.(EDT) August 23, 2020

Actually nevermind the draft is already created. Well its been so fast the article already is moved and the 1996 article was already renamed... close the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidTheMeteorologist (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 August 2020 (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.

Protection for page

@Destroyeraa: Can we please get a protection for this page? I'm tired of correcting the vandals who screw up Laura's wind speeds.ChessEric (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope they put it on there, it’s getting really annoying. Rmagnan (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: A request has already been made by INeedSupport, but an admin hasn't responded yet. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: Thanks for letting me know.ChessEric (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gave the page semi-protection for a week. Vandalism is only spiking because of Laura. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit, ChessEric, and INeedSupport: ChessEric, sorry I didn't respond so quick, I was busy at the time. If you want page protection, install Twinkle, and you should be able to request page protection (RPP). INeedSupport, thank you for requesting, and Cyclonebiskit, thank you for the protection. Vandals can get annoying after a while :) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: No problem :) INeedSupport ^😷 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for the protection and for your guys' tireless efforts to get rid of the vandalism, as well as for your edits. Weatherman27 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

"Laura devastated the southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas with Lake Charles, Louisiana being particularly hard hit"

Please remove "the" from this sentence. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:B820:ACF8:7F31:3ABA (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Deaths from Hurricane Laura

Just curious, where are you getting these death totals? Last I heard (from the weather channel, probably not reliable source) there were only around four deaths. I like hurricanes (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

NHC says otherwise. That's the one and only place WPTC gets its information on active storms for. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I’m not sure how that addressed @I like hurricanes: question. We get our death totals from the news, mainly local news for the US but some from International news, like Al Jareeza or the NYT for non-English speaking countries. For current storm info, such as wind speed and pressure, as Chicdat said, we get them from the NHC or the WPC. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

TS Omar and Nana

Should these two not be displayed the other way round on the list of storms? The page is currently displaying Omar then Nana, but surely if they formed that way round, then NHC would have named them the other way round? Bellminsterboy (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bellminsterboy: No, this happens sometimes when storms are active at the same time. Omar formed before Nana as Tropical Depression Fifteen, but it reached tropical storm status after Nana did. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bellminsterboy: See 2019 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Jerry. Jerry formed before Imelda, but was named after Imelda, but it still formed before Imelda, so it gets placed first. We need everyone else to understand this, lots of edit warring going about in the article due to this mixup. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, I suspected this but wanted confirmation before I made any edits, which I can see I don't need to do. Bellminsterboy (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I did a double take and checked back to see if it was by date becoming TD or by name myself when I saw it. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Not unprecedented, though. It happened last year with Jerry and Imelda and in the 2011 Pacific hurricane season with Irwin and Jova. I half expected it with Laura and Marco this year. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Well shouldn't Nana go before Omar even though she formed before he did? GarylovesWeather (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No - why should TD 16 come before TD 15 just because it was named first? Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Jason. Storms are posted on order of formation, not naming. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion- Add this note to the Systems section: Note that systems are listed in order of their designation as a tropical depression, which may not align with the alphabetical sequence of named storms.Mw843 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but the message should be either converted into a note or hidden with markup, so that only editors can see. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it really needed bearing in mind that most basins jump around the alphabet with their names? Jason Rees (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

How many times have people tried to flip Omar & Nana? Add 1 to that, because I was about to hit publish before I figured it out. A note would be fine. The Atlantic basin generally assigns names in alphabetic sequence, so IMO the exception needs some sort of notice.Mw843 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mw843: This isn’t unusual though, same thing happened last year with Jerry and Imelda, so I personally don’t get where all this confusion is coming from. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: You know that, and I figured that out eventually, but I think there have been 4 good faith attempts so far to flip Omar & Nana ... so far: people expect the storms to be in alphabetical order.Mw843 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mw843: There really doesn't need to be a note. While, I understand where you're coming from and understanding the confusion, a note isn't really necessary because this isn't that uncommon. People may expect the storms to be in alphabetical order, but the storms have always been listed by formation date first, not by name. Because TD 15 (which became Omar) developed first, it is listed before Nana. But, because Nana was named before TD 15, it is listed after. If there comes a time where in post-season, the NHC determines that Omar did, in fact, become a tropical storm before Nana, then a note would added to specify. Gumballs678 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678 and Mw843: By a note, I think Mw843 and I meant a hidden note, added at the tops of the Systems section and each of the sections for Omar and Nana. For readers, the formation dates in the info box should be enough. Some info in Nana’s section should do too.~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I see. When I read it, I thought they meant like a footnote. A hidden note is fine, I do like that. The one there now seems to be working because there hasn't been a lot of back and forth with Nana and Omar since it was put in place. Apologies, as well, @Mw843:Gumballs678 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed someone left a hidden message - Omar formed before Nana as Tropical Depression 15, do not switch them. I think that's perfect. Hopefully it'll stop people from trying to switch them again (which should subside once both storms dissipate). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think, going forward, it would be a good idea to leave a hidden note whenever this situation arises, since it does easily lead to confusion. There was similar confusion over Jerry and Imelda last year, and those storms have similar notes. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a editing guide page specifically dedicated to tropical cyclones? Because it would probably be best to note this there rather then in each article. I feel like there tend to be a lot of repeated issues in these articles and making notes on each article is tedious compared to having a set standard listed on an editing guide. I feel like a hidden note linking the editing guide would be much more useful so as to make sure editors are connected to a guide that details all possible issues. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have chucked something into WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Style, feel free to expand/copyedit it.Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's great, thanks Jason. Hopefully that can end up being useful going forward. I can go contribute when I get a second. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Omar

Is Omar really still going? I have several reliable sources that tell me Omar's location is located in extremely unfavorable conditions, and should have dissipated two days ago. TD 15 wasn't even forecast to strengthen into a tropical storm, let alone survive six days! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Omar is still going but not for long presumably. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there editors who go back afterward and make adjustments where apropos to season articles based upon post season storm reports? Drdpw (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of the editors associated with the tropical cyclone project make adjustments where apropopiate to the season articles when the storm reports come out- in or out of season.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Omar is done, except in the nightmares of the forecasters "In a world where a storm would not die ...".Mw843 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hidden notes on future storms

I've noticed, lately, that people have been adding hidden notes on upcoming names. I can understand the excitement with how early storms are forming this year, and I understand the desire to be "the one" that makes the edit to add a name. But this is kind of getting into iffy territory with WP:CRYSTAL. Can we please hold off on jumping the gun and wait until the storms are actually named? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I vehemently agree. There’s no need to add these notes before the storms actually form, this is seriously becoming disruptive and a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure who added the note. While I understand the intent, all notes regarding the Greek names is indeed a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I noted earlier that once it becomes clear that the season will actually use the Greek alphabet, then we can add in a note saying that A) the NHC will use the Greek alphabet for future named storms for the remainder of the season, and B), actually reveal the current set of Greek letters hidden. It's not 100% certain that the season will reach the Greek alphabet, even though four named storms remain on the regular list. We just need to play this out day-by-day and act accordingly. Gumballs678 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the possibility, though, that the season won't reach the Greek letters? 100% chance of there being Sally, 99% chance of there being Teddy, 95% chance of there being Vicky, and 90% chance of there being Wilfred. I mean, apart from S onwards, is 2005 still in the record list? No. There's a big fat Edouard-Fay-Gonzalo-Isaias-Josephine-Kyle-Marco-Omar-Nana-Paulette-Rene mass of cumulonimbus clouds that replaced Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Jose, Katrina, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Phillipe, and Rita. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: There's not a 100% chance on any of that happening, though. Sure, yes, the Atlantic may very well be on Sally by next week week, but there's still not a 100% guarantee that the Atlantic will reach the Greek alphabet. There are a lot of unknowns in that department. 2005 got through "R" in September and then had a two week lull before producing Stan on October 1. It began to slow down in October, like many seasons did, and didn't produce Alpha until October 22. I'm sure many people during that time thought the season was going to reach the Greek alphabet earlier than it did. We don't know if the Atlantic will actually get to the Greek alphabet. What if Wilfred ends being the last storm of the season? Gumballs678 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mention above, I think it may be worth mentioning the Greek Alphabet contingency even now and perhaps making it standard for active hurricane season articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I'm still iffy on that, but I understand your intentions and think that it would be fine to say something like that. If the season doesn't get to the Greek letters, then we can reword it, but anything further than that may be pushing it. Gumballs678 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I think that we should just say that if it goes through all of them, then it will use the Greek list, and like you said, do that for the rest. But don't add the actual list until it reaches that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodingCyclone (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree here. As active as this season has been, I think we should hold adding hidden Greek names until the chance for them is absolutely guaranteed (i.e. we get to Vicky and other areas to watch are out). That being said, how would that be incorporated into the article space? Since the situation we are talking about has only occurred in 2005, I'm kinda lost on what to do here. Do we add the entire list of Greek names or just some?ChessEric (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alpha to Zeta would do since that's the historical maximum. If we end up with more we can just add them as we go along. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the history for the 2005 season. Back then, each Greek letter was only added when that storm was actually named, not even a hidden list. That's what we should do this time and on any future seasons that exceed 21 named storms. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think adding one-by-one is ideal, and that was also waaay back in the infancy of the project. Having the six names that have been used before, Alpha to Zeta, seems like a good compromise over adding the entire alphabet. I added them in as an "auxiliary list", same as how the extra PAGASA names are handled in the WPac, but that was removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After Wilfred forms, we should add Alpha–Zeta and see if they form. That's what I think. Then, once December 31 has come and gone, just put a list of the storm names used in 2020 instead of the Greek alphabet all the way to Ω. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Look @TornadoLGS:, I agree with @Cyclonebiskit: here, by putting the greek names in hidden markup. It's not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the names are hidden to the reader, and only editors can see it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Having a hidden list, like before, is fine, in opinion. No one except the editors can see it, so it's not violating anything. It only becomes a violation if the names are shown now. Not sure why the auxiliary list was removed, but I think it should be re-added. As for doing the names one-on-one, that seems kind of silly because in other basins that have auxiliary lists, the first six (or however many) are shown and then if they aren't used, they're noted as such. It seems kind of counterproductive to do something like that. Even in the regular list of names, we don't go show the names as they are used. Gumballs678 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever is decided ultimately should be the format for these articles going forward. Personally, any of having the list always visible, having it not be visible until one needs to be used, or something where the list is shown where there is a threat of needing it but is removed when its not needed seem like reasonable enough policies, though I tend to prefer avoiding the former given the list isn't a rotating list. Perhaps a note in the "Storm Names" section should exist from 2007 on (given the usage of the Greek letters was also noted in this section in the 2006 article) noting the existence of this policy, complimented by waiting to actually show the list until a storm with one of these names forms. This means that this part of the naming policy is visible on each article but indication of the need for such a list is only shown in seasons where systems with these names formed. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would support having the Greek letters mentioned in the Storm Names section during the active season moving forward, but not listing them until they are needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The current second sentence in the storm names section: "If more than 21 named tropical cyclones occur this season, those additional storms will take names from the Greek alphabet." is a simple statement of fact, and is, IMO, appropriate for placement in future season articles. Regarding the additional / auxiliary names beyond 21-name list, I See no compelling need for them ( or some of them) to be made visible on the table of names (as is the case at present) until there is an active storm with that Greek-letter name. Drdpw (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Keep the "if more than 21 named tropical cyclones occur" for this season and use it in future seasons. It's just a general statement that informs readers what the plan will be, name wise, if a list is exhausted. And if the season fails to exhaust the list, then no harm has been done. But, creating that statement AND showing the Greek letters now, is not necessary because the season has not yet exhausted its list of names. I feel that if, and only if, the season does exhaust the list, then the Greek names be shown. Before then will just cause confusion. Gumballs678 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Gumballs678's idea. If Wilfred forms, and then a tropical depression forms, then the Greek letters should be un-hidden. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I second @Chicdat and Gumballs678:. However, I think after Vicky forms, then a new TD forms. After the TD forms BEFORE IT IS NAMED, , I think we should unhide the Greek letter names. Considering, since, most tropical depression become tropical storms. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing Drdpw, I think a mention of the fact that the auxiliary list is the Greek alphabet is sufficient. The entire alphabet does not need to be listed, and we can add names when (not before) they're needed. If people want to know what the letters of the Greek alphabet are, they can click the link. --WMSR (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Satellite images

I've noticed that the satellite images for Paulette and Rene are several days out of date. I would like to participate in keeping these images updated, but I'm not quite sure on the procedure for acquiring them. I see that most of them come from EOSDIS Worldview, but the site only gives the date of the images, and it only seems to have a temporal resolution of a day, so I don't know where uploaders get the time stamps. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"See Also"

This may not be a rational complaint, but I've noticed several instances this year of systems with large quantities of supposedly related systems in their See Also sections, but I feel like a lot of them are reaches. For example, Cristobal has six related systems in its see also section, but some of them aren't all that similar, like Larry, Lee, and to a lesser extent Barry. I feel that we shouldn't be over-saturating these see also sections with storms that are only slightly similar. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but this is a complaint that may be better brought up on the talk pages of the affected articles. Although I would personally suggest just boldly changing the affected "see also" sections without discussion. Buttons0603 (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Record breaking season" just a result of better storm detection technology?

Despite the seemingly record number of storms, there has only been 1 major hurricane so far in the season, and the vast majority of storms have been short-lived & far away from land. Is it just better storm detection technology driving this "record season?" I remember in some previous years, some storms went undetected at first and were added to the record only after the season had ended. 73.158.33.88 (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Last time there was an undetected storm, it was in 2005 itself. Nah, the NHC is keeping a very close eye on everything that looks the least bit like a tropical cyclone, in case it hits the United States (Click the links!). 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a variety of factors behind this "record-breaking season" which include in no particular order: A switch from El Nino to La Nina, Climate Change, better detection rate and the ongoing warm phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation amongst others.Jason Rees (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference 1 requires sharepoint login

Reference 1 ([1]) is on sharepoint.com and requires me to sign in, which I cannot do. Please can someone with access to this document archive it publicly somehow? --BrianLambert (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference 1 is the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale and is available through the NHC, not some World Meteorological Organization Sharepoint site. I'm not seeing that URL anywhere in the article itself either. Can you be a bit more specific as to which reference you want, and I'll see if I can get it for you / fix the reference in the article so that it links to something publicly accessible. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe you have the wrong article. The sharepoint link is in the first ref at tropical cyclone naming. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the link (https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php) but did not know how to do all the other ref formatting within the nb1 note.Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignore, I was mistaken in trying to fix it, Drdpw fixed it.Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am reopening this discussion as this is an issue that impacts the whole project and we need to work out, as the WMO Sharepoint site is publically accessible once you have accessed the WMO's website.Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: It‘ s not an issue in this article (it certainly was not in this instance at any rate). If you wish to pursue the matter further, I suggest that you open a discussion on the project talk page or on a page where a link leads to the WMO Sharepoint site. Said general discussion would be off-topic here. Drdpw (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I belive that its fine to be spoken about here as this article will be impacted if we are not able to find a fix, as we will not be able to directly link to the WMO's country reports for the hurricane committee or statements about the La Nina episode.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE

I already know what would happen on Sunday morning. I put it with <! - -> if the National Hurricane Center gets its last update. Just like <!-- With 19 named storms, it is the third-most active [[Atlantic hurricane season]] on [[List of Atlantic hurricane records|record]], tied with the [[1887 Atlantic hurricane season|1887]], [[1995 Atlantic hurricane season|1995]], [[2010 Atlantic hurricane season|2010]], [[2011 Atlantic hurricane season|2011]], and [[2012 Atlantic hurricane season|2012]] seasons. --> as a result because the season will be the third most active in 10 and 8 years--МОДОКАУ 09:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, it's better to update the page for events that have actually happened, not ones we anticipate happening. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Omar Full Track

Can someone please add Omar's full track to the seasonal map? I don't know how to do this. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done An editor has added it. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Paulette intensity

@MarioProtIV: It's unhelpful when NHC contradicts themselves, but the text takes precedence over the graphic; please use 95 mph for now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC) @Tornado1312: Accordingly, please don't upgrade it to Category 2 yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on with the opening sentence. It currently says "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation." This used to be the standard opener for seasons, but it's rather bland and doesn't say much.

I tried to spice it up by saying: "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season has featured record activity, and is an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation." A few users have removed the "has featured record activity" part. Rather than re-adding it back in, I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. Eventually, we'll have something like "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was the Xth most active season on record in the basin," but we can't put that yet because we're "only" on the R storm. Once we get to the T storm, we can say that it's tied for the third-most active, and when we get to the V storm, we can say tied for second most active. I thought it would be useful to tell the readers in the opener that the season has featured record activity, but some other users disagree, so I figured I'd bring it up on the talk page. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: As of me writing this, that phrase was moved to the second sentence and amended slightly. I had no qualms with it, but the way it was worded made it a run-on sentence, which is why I changed it.ChessEric (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious why you felt it was a run-on, as it wasn't a particularly long sentence, and it helped establish the record-breaking nature of the season immediately. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Your right about most run-on sentences being "too long", since most are, but that's not always the case. The reason why I said that it was a run-on sentence was because of the way I thought the sentence was worded. The way I read it (which may sound weird, but hear me out), it sounded like you were trying to describe the "record activity" as the ongoing annual event rather then the "hurricane season" itself. However, I will admit that I just looked back at the edit and realized that I may have missed the "and" in the sentence for some reason. LOL! Anyway, your statement was fine, but I was just trying to fix the grammar of it. Sorry if it seemed like I was making a really weird edit though because I read it wrong.ChessEric (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't like boilerplate lead methods, except when they're in stuff like 1855 Atlantic hurricane season. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, however, is quite colorful. "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is currently a very active season, featuring nineteen tropical depressions, seventeen named storms, five hurricanes, and one major hurricane. The strongest storm of the season, Laura, is tied with the 1856 Last Island hurricane for the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone in Louisiana. Though the season officially began on June 1, tropical cyclones formed earlier, with Tropical Storm Arthur forming on May 16. The next storm of the season, Bertha..." That is what is good in an encyclopedia. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And no love for me re-adding that back in. Ravenpuff (talk · contribs), what was your problem with the previous wording? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Sorry, I didn't come across this talk-page discussion before I made my edit. I don't object to stating "featured record activity" at the very start of the article; it's just that it seems odd to mention something specific about the season first, then continuing with the general statement "is an ongoing event ...". It's more encyclopedic to describe the subject in general terms first, then continue on to the important specific points. Chicdat's alternative is fine by me – I agree that we don't really need the boilerplate "ongoing event" etc. phrase if the lead can be structured in a better way. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How's - The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is a record-breaking and an ongoing hurricane season in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is a record-breakong and an ongoing hurricane season" seems way to wordy. Maybe phrase it like, "the 2020 Atlantic hurricane is an ongoing event that has featured recording-breaking activity". Hurricane season doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Gumballs678 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WE HAVE A WINNER! Hah, thanks @Gumballs678: I think that's a great opener, at least until 2020 is the 2nd most active season (when I imagine we'd mention that). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If Twenty strengthens into Teddy (I think so, let's let Twenty see if I'm right), then the 2020 AHS will be tied for the third-most active season on record. If the ALP in the Western Gulf of Mexico Bay of Campeche becomes Vicky, then it'll be tied for the second-most active season, and if Wilfred forms before September's over, I'm going to scream. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink, Chicdat, and Gumballs678: Vicky just formed. Just wait until Wilfred and Alpha.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Paulette intensity problems causing Edit war, kinda.

So I’ve noticed that in the latest updates from the NHC shows that Paulette is at 95 mph, however, the graphic shows 100 mph. I’ve noticed people saying that Paulette is a Cat 1 and others that think it’s a Cat 2, which is causing an Edit war. A related edit war is involving the conversion of knots to mph for the intensity of Paulette, as some people say 82 kn is correct conversion, while others say that 80 or 85 kn would be Ok. Please discuss here so we can come up to a final decision for the category and intensity of Paulette. — DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk

If you hover over the icon, it actually says 85 knots. That ends this argument entirely and thus why I reverted myself. Noah^Talk 12:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I think now argument is completely done since the NHC just fixed their forecast cone graphic which now also says 95 mph, which means it’s a cat 2. DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk 8:43 a.m. September 14, 2020. (EDT)

@DavidTheMeteorologist and Jasper Deng: 95 mph is NOT Cat 2... they are purposely screwing with us now. Noah^Talk 12:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

lol... they went up to 100 mph at 13z after spending all that time correcting everything to 95 mph. Noah^Talk 12:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@DavidTheMeteorologist and Hurricane Noah: It a mistake on the NHC's part. Usually they don't use 95 mph. They use knots. So it's fair to say that we use 85 kts which converts to 100 mph.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: It wasn't a mistake. They purposely changed the cone graphic from 100 to 95 mph. Noah^Talk 13:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I dunno why the NHC did that. The NHC doesn't usually convert 85 kt to 95 mph; they usually convert it to 100 mph. However, they changed it 1 hour later.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Yeah, he said at 12z that he would be issuing again at 13z... I said above they were screwing with us. Also, Vicky was declared and is now on the new ASCAT images. Noah^Talk 13:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Damn! We're going to run out of names IN SEPTEMBER! And why would the NHC screw with us? It's not april fools day.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Btw, we still have the second half of september... we have had 7 named storms in the first half (record is 8 for the whole month). We still have the second-most active month left and November. NHC wants to keep us on our toes :P Noah^Talk 13:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: According to Tropical Tidbits, 21L became Vicky with a pressure of 1002 mbar and winds of 40 kt. Awaiting NHC special advisory confirming this. How did a weak TD with winds of 30 kt and a high pressure of 1009 mbar just deepen and strengthen so much? This is actually quite alarming... ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the NHC best track has 40 knots and all the official images on FNMOC have Vicky now. It is time we think about showing the Greek names here as we are likely to exhaust the entire list by this weekend. Noah^Talk 13:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Greek letter names in Storm names section

Until when (after which named storm) should the currently-hidden Greek letter names in the Storm names section remain hidden? Drdpw (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we should have to get pretty close. I would say, we should wait until there is an invest that would be named Alpha if it develops. So, for example, have an invest after Wilfred is named, or two invests after Vicky is named etc. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Once Wilfred, if it forms, the names should be updated to include the Greek names. Just in case we get another invest trying to develop. Rmagnan (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the Greek letters should remain hidden until it becomes absolutely certain that one will be named. It seems a little premature to show them after Vicky or Wilfred, because it's not a guarantee if they will develop. If for example, TD X strengthens into a tropical storm after Wilfred and officially becomes Alpha, then I think at that point, they should be shown. The current list needs to be exhausted first before we start showing the "auxiliary" list--in this case, the Greek alphabet. Gumballs678 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree in general with the above. However, I think we could mention something like, “In the event the naming list is exhausted, the NHC will name storms using the Greek alphabet.” That shouldn’t be too controversial, and given the season forecasts, I think it is a worthy addition for now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree that we should simply add a note rather than list any of the Greek letters. Any Greek-letter names should simply be added as those storms occur. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur; the currently hidden Greek letter names ought not be un-hidden until the storm name becomes active (which appears to be what was done in 2005). I would not, however, pounce and revert if someone un-hid the next name—the hidden names all have (unused) beside them)—when a TD formed. Drdpw (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that it's too early to add the Greek alphabet to the list, I don't think it would be out of line to mention the Greek alphabet contingency. I dug through the revision history for the 2005 season to see what precedent there might be, and I found it was first mentioned in early August. At the very latest we should add something if/when Wilfred is named, to the effect of "Any additional tropical storms that form will be named after letters of the Greek alphabet." [2]. I don't know if WP:CRYSTAL existed when these edits were made in 2005, but the Greek alphabet policy exists whether or not a season exceeds 21 named storms. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, while it is a near-certainty at this point that we'll go into Greek letters, we can't predict how far we'll get in the Greek alphabet. We should only list them as they occur XinaNicole (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Greek Letters

@Gumballs678, Chicdat, TornadoLGS, and Hurricane Noah: I have unhidden the Greek names, because it's about time that we do. We still have half of September left, and only Wilfred is left. Wilfred will form within the next few weeks, along with Alpha, Beta, etc. The season just got a lot more active... ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I changed it to display as an auxiliary list, which is what it technically is. I also removed everything after Gamma for now. We should treat this like the CPAC and only display a few names at a time. If we need more, we can always add more. Noah^Talk 13:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I'm fine with that, considering Wilfred is the only name left and it's still the middle of September. @Hurricane Noah: I don't have an issue with it being listed as an auxiliary list like it is now, but we may want to restructure it like the Filipino auxiliary list if several Greek names form. Just a thought for the future. Gumballs678 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Since we're up to Vicky and already have a new tropical wave rolling off of Africa, it's reasonable to put them there. I figured we'd probably get to the Greek letters before the end up September, but I didn't think it'd get this crazy. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You know what would be funny? If Vicky was the last named storm/last storm of the season! LOL! I know that probably won't happen though.ChessEric (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The way this season is going, even after the inevitable slowdown we're likely to have Eta form soon after Christmas, followed by Ana on New Year's Day 2021 to open the 2021 AHC. Drdpw (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, @TornadoLGS: Also alarming is the rate Sally is intensifying at @ChessEric:. Went from a 65 mph TS into a 90 mph Cat 1 hurricane in less than 2 hours. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Actually, from what I'm seeing from recon, that happened in about or just under an hour...scary. Just when I thought the intensity forecast was a little bit overdone, BOOM! Sally says, "Take that!" LOL!ChessEric (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: What next, Teddy storming up San Juan Hill? LOL. Drdpw (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric and Drdpw: Take a look at this! Looks like a nuclear bomb went off in the center of Sally. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I did notice that this morning! It looked the large CDO was weakening before an even larger burst of thunderstorm quickly replaced as the the new CDO. Impressive imagery. I think a shot of that should definitely go on Sally's page once all is set and done.ChessEric (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: I support your formatting suggestion (do I read you correctly?):

Auxiliary list

Alpha (unused) Beta (unused)

Gamma (unused) Delta (unused)

Epsilon (unused) Zeta (unused)

— Drdpw (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the not-insignificant possibility that more than six Greek names are needed, I would keep it as a single column.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: yes, that would be correct. @Jasper Deng: If we use it as an auxiliary list, a single column would like rather odd, because it would be only those six names in a column and nothing else with them. If we do it like Destroyeraa has modeled above, it looks cleaner, but also more organized. If we only use three Greek names, then we can keep the list as is, but if we use the six, like in 2005, then it makes sense for it to be modeled like above. We shouldn't use a single column in the regular list of names, because they're not part of that list. Gumballs678 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This is new territory for me and I don't know how exactly to handle it. Additionally, the next couple weeks will be interesting. On one hand, we are seeing tropical cyclones at a record pace, but on the other, the models are only showing one other possible tropical cyclone forming in the near future as all the other ones die out/becoming post-tropical. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I think we will see at least one or two greek names being used this year.ChessEric (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Regarding the imagery, it was probably made as a gif from TropicalTidbits. Paulette may die off and then regenerate near the Azores. Teddy will likely strengthen and become a major hurricane. Sally will hit the US Gulf coast and most likely get absorbed by a cold front, which itself may spawn a new TC. Vicky and Rene will likely die off soon. Also, we need to watch the new tropical wave - the NHC says it may become Wilfred. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth considering going by row rather than by column since it would mean less rearranging should we need nine or more Greek letters? Or is it better to be consistent with the main naming list? Only really a half-hearted suggestion. Also, at the risk of sounding like a policy wonk, this thread is drifting off topic. I know the current situation is exciting, but this is not a forum. Let's try to avoid speculating on the futures of the storms. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, getting back on topic, I believe that either we put the Greek letters to the side of the naming list as a neat column, like the naming lists are, with a header called Auxiliary list. Not putting "Auxiliary list" would confuse readers since the greek letters are not part of the naming list by the WMO. Or, we can put them into rows like @Drdpw: showed above. Just don't put the greek letters in a column if you want to separate them below. That will look funky and plain weird. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How about we wait until Wilfred is named (or even until Alpha is named) and then put in the first six letters modeled after the 2005 page? Since this has only happened one time before, I believe this should be modeled after that. United States Man (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that, that model was only put in place today. Drdpw (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay? Keep this and that the same formatting no matter when that was done. United States Man (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw and United States Man: I formatted 2005 and 2020 similarly to the list here for the typhoon season. We can't have continuous lists like the JMA and Australian names as Greek letters aren't part of the standard naming list. This is simply a backup "auxiliary" protocol put into place during and after 2005's unprecedented activity. That is why I changed the format... we must have a standard throughout the project for such things. Noah^Talk 01:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources need fixing

Several sources used in the article use the six hour update links used for public advisories for all tropical cyclones. (i.e. Tropical Storm Edouard) Please fix them.ChessEric (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ChessEric I'm not sure what you mean? Gumballs678 (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Tedious task, but someone needs to do it. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue regarding 1933 season

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 have removed the mention twice now of the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season reason being the 2nd most active season as that title is disputed. The 1933 article states in the lead:

"Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable. Compensating for the lack of comprehensive observation, one hurricane researcher estimates the season could have produced 24 tropical cyclones"

I object to adding this claim unless it can be backed up by reliable sources in a neutral way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the most reliable source for storm data all the way back to 1851. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Knowledgekid87: There's one and only one opinion that matters, that of the NHC. This season has been analyzed by the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project and thus, while some storms still could have been missed, it's considered rather reliable now. The possibility of having missed storms is why we usually also make another statement about "in the satellite era" when disregarding these early seasons, but there's nothing wrong with the existing statement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Knowledgekid87:What about the 769 season, the 1547 BC season, or the 2 million BC season? Surely they could have had more than any other year. The point being is that 1933 is the second-most active season that we currently know of. That could change in the future due to future seasons or reanalysis of old ones. Noah^Talk 03:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• I don't understand the objection. According to the NHC, it is the second most active season on record, which is what the sentence states. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable records go back to 1851, so that argument is invalid.ChessEric (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Departure from the HURDAT norm of post 1851 NA basin activity would be unusal to say the least, this sort of expression is relatively normal, and indeed supported by the NHC, unless a large body of evidence suggests 24 storms in 1933 exists that would take precedence over HURDAT it would be inappropriate to change based on NPOV when indeed the sources seem to suggest the current position as the established norm. ThePelicanThing (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (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.

Best Track Link?

I'm pretty sure that there's a source for best track that is used in plotting maps, but I can't find it... Can anyone give a link for the source, please? Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Luke Kern Choi 5: Contact @FleurDeOdile:, the editor who does the track maps. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/ATCF/NHC/?C=M;O=D FleurDeOdile 13:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sally

According the NHC BestTrack, Sally got downgraded to a 90 mph. @MarioProtIV and Hurricaneboy23:, should we change it? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO I believe we should. While NHC advisories may be official, the running best track is also official to as it revises the intensity at various points. We’ve done this in these cases with JTWC before with storms such as Ambali and Nock-ten operationally (because the BT is courtesy of JTWC there) and I don’t see why we could do the same for the NHC, given the running BT is also courtesy of NHC. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, this has never happened before. Usually, storms are reevaluated in post-analysis (TCR). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The best track never override the advisories until the TCR comes out. If I recall something similar happened with Michael of 2018 where it was a C5 in the best track at one point but advisories said otherwise Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, convention has been to default to advisories for peak intensity in the NHC AOR until the TCR has been released. I've talked with NHC specialists before and they've told me the operational best track isn't the final say as it's just that, operational. JTWC is different as the operational best track gets included in some of the advisories. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but then you have to think about how we’re conveying the info. Users who would view the article on Sally would see it as a C2 in the infobox, while the track map shows nothing above C1, which is misleading. And there’s no nonsynoptic point either. And the TCRs don’t come out for a few months after the end of the season especially for significant storms so you’re talking about at least 3-5 more months of misleading info, providing Sally doesn’t peak again. The only other way around this would be to keep the 18z point as 85 kt despite the running BT says otherwise. IMO, this is very different from Lorenzo’s situation. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is no different from Lorenzo, Michael, and other storms that have asynoptic peaks. The primary info is conveyed in text and a ref is attached to the statement of it peaking at Category 2 status. That's how we handled Lorenzo's Cat 5 status. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV and Cyclonebiskit: Are you guys saying that Sally peaked at an asynoptic point maintained that intensity for only 3 hours? If that is so, we have to confirm it with the TCR. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the trouble of using the operational best track when it doesn't supersede advisories. The NHC ignores it for their monthly summaries, so whatever peak is shown in the OBT will be overridden by advisories. We've largely used it because the tracks are cleaner... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thank you for your input. FleurDeOdile's track maps already reflect the changes made to the OBT. A note will probably be necessary there, as readers will get confused how Sally became a Cat 2, and think that either the track map or the article is wrong. Also, it's cool that you got to talk with some NHC specialists - you must be very into tropical cyclones! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I worked at the NHC for a few years helping out with the reanalysis project. Still have some connections with them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Very cool! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This entire conversation got nullified since Sally is now a C2. Talk about a 180! --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 05:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Will the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season be surpassed?

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.

---

2005 was the most active Atlantic hurricane season, having 28 named storms. Some officials have predicted that this year will be hyperactive due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And we already have 20 named storms as of this month. 2005 might be overtaken by 2020 as the most active hurricane season, and I do not expect that to happen. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Seventyfiveyears: I dunno, we'll see. Also, this is why we added the greek letters to the storm names section.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This isnt just a matter of the systems forming at a record pace. It's record pace by a mile. I wouldn't assume storms to continue forming into the following year like in 2005, but we don't even have to get anywhere near then at this pace. Unless something drastically changes I'd expect to get to Zeta. This season lacks the strong and long lasting storms of 2005, but has a good chance to have as many or more systems nonetheless. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that the talk pages aren't a forum, and should instead be about the main article. If the speculation about the season requires discussion about the article (such as when/if to mention the Greek names), that is appropriate, hence the discussions earlier in the page. Merely speculating about activity shouldn't be here, but on one of the many weather forums/groups online. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this as a forum, please see here. Otherwise, I'm closing this discussion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:02, 16 September 2020 (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.

Teddy Article

I would like to discuss here about Hurricane Teddy. I think it should have its own article, because it is a powerful Category 4 hurricane (almost all C4s have articles) and also because it could bring Tropical Storm force winds to Bermuda after Paulette. I would want someone to make Draft:Hurricane Teddy. Please discuss here if you want an article on Teddy or not. DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Somebody already did I like hurricanes (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep. See Draft:Hurricane Teddy. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)