Talk:2024 Pacific hurricane season

Combination of CPAC and EPAC

Why aren't the Central Pacific and Eastern Pacific separate articles each season? It seems from other articles that basins are being defined according to the WMO and not ATCF. I realize that there has been little to no activity in the former for several years ongoing now, however to maintain consistency, each should be separated at some point moving forward. TriWX (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Because they are combined into the same best track, and a lot of the storms in the CPAC originate in the EPAC. It's along the lines of the Australian basin having the Indonesian sub-basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@TriWX I started a discussion on this topic last year but the consensus remains against combining the two. JayTee⛈️ 23:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Satellite image of the four storms

I imagine at some point we'll add this, so I'm requesting it now - can someone upload a decent image showing the four active tropical storms? Apparently it's the first time since 1974 that there were four simultaneous storms in the EPAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Point of information, 2018 Pacific hurricane season had four tropical cyclones active on August 7: Hector, Kristy, John, and Ileana.[1]

Also, use the new colours, please. _ZZ^Z'S 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What new colours? I'm talking like a satellite image. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were referring to the summary map. Please disregard my previous request. _ZZ^Z'S 18:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Found this image on WM Commons but I don't quite know if anyone captured the four together. JayTee⛈️ 03:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, got the image from NASA Worldview. JayTee⛈️ 03:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for adding! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hone article

I believe Tropical Storm Hone deserved an article, as it was the first CPAC storm since 2019, it will probably make impacts on Hawaii, and also has a notable meteorological history that could include the merging with another system. 96.236.149.251 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is too soon to start a draft on this system. Right now its meteorological history can be fully documented in this article as can its notoriety as the first named storm to form in the Central Pacific since 2019. (Bear in mind that it is not the first named storm in the Central Pacific during that time period.) Better to wait and see whether the "potential for heavy rainfall, gusty winds, and dangerous surf and rip currents" on the Big Island come to fruition. Drdpw (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Far too early, need to establish Hone’s notability before it can have an article in place. Having a disturbance that merged into its precursor and the chance of it impacting Hawaii don’t establish this. JayTee⛈️ 22:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this as I have a draft of a Hone article in my sandbox. Will move once impacts become more evident so we can avoid a rushed AfC. JayTee⛈️ 04:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For now, try to see what type of preparations are being made. Are any parks or beaches closed? That kind of stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Already have a paragraph of it! Will keep expanding though. JayTee⛈️ 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you share a link to the sandbox? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile This is my sandbox draft. Open to suggestions, will likely publish soon as Hone nears Hawaii. JayTee⛈️ 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Check for beaches and parks closed. That's what usually happens when storms pass near Hawaii. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

14 September request

change skirted to struck at Tropical Storm Ileana 174.100.202.40 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not doneNHC TC discussion says "skirted". Drdpw (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

John article

If anyone is reading this talk page, I think an article for John will likely be needed soon. It's a rapidly intensifying hurricane about to make landfall. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A draft has been created by IrishSurfer21 at Draft:Hurricane John (2024), and it seems to be almost ready for moving to mainspace. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not questioning the ultimate noteworthiness of the storm, but the draft seems rather thin right now. No reason to rush it to publication. Nice work thus far. Drdpw (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say if someone could update the met history to the present the article's good for publishing. Already longer than the published Helene draft. JayTee⛈️ 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Helene article will grow significantly larger during the coming days. What are the prospects of the John article doing likewise? Even with the met history updated, the article seems a bit thin for publishing. Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree with what Drdpw has said, I think it is clear as day that this storm is notable. Maybe it should remain a draft until enough data is found. 96.236.149.251 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of information is already out, and will be coming out over the next day. I think it's fine to be published now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just waiting for reviewer to publish the approved draft. Drdpw (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been published. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Kristy article

If it becomes a category 5, shouldn't it get an article, since I don't remember there being any category 5 pacific hurricanes without a page. SillyNerdo (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

just noting, I won't be replying to anything else. SillyNerdo (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that every other storm having an article is purely coincidental and that unless Kristy has a notable meteorological history and maybe minor impacts (not sure on what, as its at see), I don't think it'll need an article Shmego2 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Found out only Hurricane Patsy is the only cat 5 in the eastern pacific without a page. SillyNerdo (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

here’s my draft: Draft:Hurricane Kristy LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Kristy is unlikely to become a Category 5 hurricane. However, even if it did I don’t think there’s enough sources to make Kristy notable for years to come (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). INeedSupport ^:3 03:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah I actually don't think it'll be a category 5. SillyNerdo (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It did not become a Cat 5. Still 155 mph winds though. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless Kristy gets more than routine media coverage on account of meteorological records or anomalies, and has land affects far away, it will not be a notable system, and so would not merit a separate article. Drdpw (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If it does end up being ran through Articles for Creation, I wouldn't mind reviewing it. :) SirMemeGod  17:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ok LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sir MemeGod|“, what, may I ask, prompts your forward interest in reviewing the draft article? And is it appropriate to announce it like this?

Because I have an interest in weather and the process can take months. It isn't a "let me review it so I can accept it", it's a "I can review it and see if it meets our guidelines". I have no intention to auto-accept it, and it should be completely fine for me to bring it up. Just trying to help. :) SirMemeGod  18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

it does need more time, so thank you for requesting help! LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Kristy doesn't pass the notability guidelines right now since it hasn't broken any meteorological records, affected any landmasses or otherwise established itself beyond routine news coverage. It also seems lately that people are asking on both hurricane season talk pages if every new storm should get an article. If you believe a storm needs an article review the notability guidelines from Wikipedia and WPTC and start drafting if the storm passes them. We don't need a discussion on every individual storm's notability. JayTee⛈️ 19:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

how did it turn into a Cat 5 suddenly LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Off topic – This is not a general discussion page. Drdpw (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32: Cat 5 in this basin is automatically considered to warrant notability because Cat 5's are rare in this basin, for example Jova, Celia, Gilma, and the like which all were fish storms. @Cyclonebiskit: usually authors the articles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The justification given two years ago for a Jova article was that Category 5 hurricanes in the eastern Pacific are rare. That has become less true since then, and is not a really good reason to give any Category 5 hurricane in the basin an article automatically. In this case, the notability of Kristy is in question, not a given just because, therefore an article should not be Considered pre-ordained.Drdpw (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"since then"–there have been a grand total of two Cat 5's in the basin since Jova, and in any case, the long-term average in the database since 1959 is less than one in every three years. That's not going to meaningfully change just because we had two. It is argumentum ad hominem to want to not have one just because the author has a history of making other non-notable articles (it's an unconscious bias of yours even if you did not mean it explicitly).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

wow Jasper had some beef with you xD

(do not take this message too seriously, I’m just agreeing with Jasper with a joke.) LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe we could build onto this draft like my Kirk draft and my Nadine draft? LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We can and should. The comments by JayTee32 and User:Drdpw ignore years of long-standing precedent on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

when do we start? LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I already made a few edits. You just go ahead and do your own. Drdpw and JayTee32 are unaware that Cat 5's in the EPAC are an exception to the long-standing idea that we need impacts for articles. We serve the readers, and readers will be here for detailed information on rare (unusual) storms. Cat 4's and below do not have such a claim to notability; there are six times as many Cat 4's alone as there are Cat 5's in this basin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng You're choosing to dismiss me and Drdpw's concerns over Kristy's notability simply because you disagree with us. A "precedent" of writing articles for every Category 5 hurricane in the East Pacific means nothing when the storm in question here is not a notable cyclone in any form. An article with an overly detailed and non-notable meteorological history is not notable. There is legitimately not a single thing establishing Kristy's notability other than the fact it reached Category 5 status which isn't inherently notable in and of itself. And why are you telling editors they have unconscious biases when they're trying to have a discussion about an article's notability? Your comments strike me as unnecessarily rude and dismissive of others. JayTee⛈️ 21:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with JayTree here, the only citations in the draft are NOAA citations, which in my opinion don't establish notability. Everyone's opinion matters. SirMemeGod  22:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng has 16 years of experience.
• JayTee only has 5 years of experience.
• You (Sir MemeGod) has only 4 years of experience.
• Drdpw has 15 years of experience.

I think we just need to hear Jasper and Drdpw’s opinion, but Jasper may have the majority in opinions. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Everyone's opinion is equally valued, and basing someone's opinion off of experience isn't how things are done. I'd link the policy, but I forgot the shortcut. SirMemeGod  22:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ok LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the policy, WP:NVC. SirMemeGod  22:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the help :) LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. :) SirMemeGod  22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't! MYSKaoi (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — MYSKaoi (talk · contribs) is currently under sockpuppet investigation. Happily888 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

dang its resolved SillyNerdo (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32: Perhaps more bluntly, changing this requires a broader discussion at WT:WPTC and a discussion over other articles on Pacific Cat 5's. An encyclopedia should be consistent with itself. It's not dismissive to point out why you're wrong.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, changing this isn't a black-and-white case of someone being wrong or right. This is about whether Kristy is notable as a storm, and it frankly isn't currently as it hasn't established itself as notable outside of routine news coverage of any storm. I don't know why you're attempting to cast one side as right and the other as wrong, we're trying to build consensus here not WP:Bludgeon the process. JayTee⛈️ 22:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I'm not trying to say your viewpoint is completely wrong and I'm completely right (or vice versa). I just don't see how Kristy is notable and believe the precedent of making all Cat 5 Pacific hurricanes their own article shouldn't be more important than the notability guidelines. JayTee⛈️ 22:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s keep it as a draft until further notice. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32: The answer to that question is yes unless you are going to overturn the whole precedent. Kristy has a minor claim as perhaps the first disturbance-from-crossover Cat 5 in this basin, but otherwise it is no more or less notable than all the other articles we have on Cat 5's; not uniformly applying the same standard consistently is arguably not neutral. @Sir MemeGod: Lack of independent sources in the existing draft as-is is not a valid argument. Many news articles (just Google Kristy "Category 5") have also covered this too. The argument should be about what's possible, not what it is. Also, the main proponent of this series of articles is @Cyclonebiskit: and they deserve to be consulted about this as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Kristy has a minor claim as perhaps the first disturbance-from-crossover Cat 5 in this basin, then the article should be: Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy. There is simply nothing establishing Kristy's notability other that it reached Category 5 strength, and that alone does not make it notable. Drdpw (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw: "There is simply nothing establishing Kristy's notability other that it reached Category 5 strength, and that alone does not make it notable" just so I'm more explicit: either open a discussion at WT:WPTC to change the projectwide consensus, or concede that WP:CONLEVEL will prevail here. It doesn't help to keep repeating that argument. You also clearly did not read the rest of my comment; the news coverage indicates that it having reached Cat 5 is a remarkable event.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

News coverage of Kristy:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] – this one also mentioning rip currents, so Mexican sources might have impact information

Further discussion of it here is not going to be fruitful if it's going to just rehash "does Category 5 confer notability?".--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I still say the answer to that question is no, but if you guys really want to make a Kristy article I can see I'm not going to convince you otherwise without a broader project discussion. JayTee⛈️ 00:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Kristy is also the first Cat 5 without an El Niño in 14 years. That's also remarkable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You know that citations alone, even multiple citations, does not establish notability. And your second point is mere trivia, which also does not establish notability. Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little bit stuck. Of course consistency is key, but Kristy is really one of the least notable cat 5s there is. Also, should this article be published, I think it'll be very small compared to others. As Drdpw said, citations don't necessarily establish notability. Every storm has a certain amount of coverage. Shmego2 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh no. Multiple citations of the required kind do establish notability; that's the core of GNG. You clearly have not read WP:TRIVIA and what it actually says.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, Shmego. There’s not much sources for Kristy. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• For all of the debate and bickering that has happened above, no one has pointed out the actual relevant guideline for TC notability: WP:NEVENT. By the way, please don't cite WP:NWX here - that's an essay discussing what is effectively a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that doesn't override the sitewide consensus described at NEVENT, and whose first line runs opposite to WP:NSUSTAINED, another core guideline. As CONLEVEL describes, until you get the broader community to accept that the standard of notability for weather events should be different, NEVENT is the relevant policy. As such, arguing that Kristy should get an article of its own simply because other EPac C5s have their own articles is a non-starter - all bar two of those hurricanes had significant impacts on land, which is how they got over the NEVENT bar.
• As for Kristy itself: it is premature to determine notability at this point, since the cyclone hasn't even dissipated yet. We can only tell if the coverage for Kristy does meet NSUSTAINED when the dust has settled, and until then it may be better to hold off on writing an article on the system. JavaHurricane 07:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  but the "ghost" of hurricane kristy that formed from the "ghost" of nadine is gonna bring huge rain to hawaii, which basically are its remnants hanging around a state in the usa Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  the ghosts of the ghosts 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No path image on cover of article for Kristy

all the other ones have them, and kristy dissapated like days ago why no path Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are you referring to? The infobox for Kristy in this article has a storm path map. Drdpw (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

i didnt see a purple dot for cat 5 like kristy was in the first place or any path moving in that exact path up in the first photo for 2024 pacific hurricane season, not the deleted article or its information box. The one with all the hurricanes. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Be patient, the person who does the path maps will update them in due time. Drdpw (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I SEE TWO PURPLE DOTS… 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

He’s talking about this file:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/2024_Pacific_hurricane_season_summary.png 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is two purple dots on the storm path map. If you are looking at the track map, not the path map, with the outdated colors, the red in this case, means Category 5. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kristy_2024_track.png 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also Ileana article

did it not make landfall or something Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

it degenerated into a remnant low over the Gulf of California near the Sinaloa coast and dissipated. Drdpw (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

so how does that make a difference it still was close enough to shore that it should get an article Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I see what you are suggesting. You did not make that clear. Ileana Was not a noticeable storm in terms of strength, duration, or affects. Hence, it does not warrant a standalone article. Drdpw (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As Drdpw said, Ileana did not cause any notable damage to land and doesn't warrant an article. The best way to inform readers of the storm is in its own section of this page. Shmego2 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Least active since 2011"

I feel like the lead sentence is slightly misleading. Sure, this season had the fewest storms since 2011, but 2020 had a lower count of hurricanes and ACE, and 2021 had a lower count of major hurricanes. Both those seasons were just a couple years ago. I feel like this could be worded differently. JayTee⛈️ 17:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I can find nothing to corroborate the statement from reliable secondary sources. Given this, and its misleading nature, the statement probably ought to be removed. Drdpw (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this statement. Yes, 2011 only had 11 named storms, but all except for one became hurricanes, of which six were major hurricanes, leading to a considerably higher ACE index than 2024. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding something along the lines of "Only 13 named storms formed (the fewest since 2011)". Given that the low number of named systems is certainly unusual IMO, especially compared to other recent years. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence already says that 2024 was a was a below-average Pacific hurricane season, which it was in both the eastern basin and the central basin. But to compare the level of activity this season with any specific previous / recent Pacific hurricane season requires that we have a reliable secondary source to back such a statement, which right now there is not. Drdpw (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the statement of the 2024 EPAC season having the least amount of named storms since 2011 isn't entirely false: 2023: 17, 2022: 19, 2021: 19, 2020: 16, 2019: 19, 2018: 23, 2017: 18, 2016: 22, 2015: 26, 2014: 22, 2013: 20, 2012: 17, 2011: 11 Hoguert (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, original research like that would need a reliable secondary source in order to be included in the article. Drdpw (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoguert My whole point about that is seasonal activity is measured by several metrics (hurricanes, major hurricanes, and especially ACE), not just the total count of named storms. So just saying this was the least active since 2011 when other seasons since then have had lower amounts of hurricanes, major hurricanes and ACE indexes doesn't make that statement by itself entirely clear. And anyways, even if we did just measure by # of named storms, like @Drdpw said we'd need a reliable secondary source to say explicitly that this was the least active since 2011, otherwise it's WP:OR. JayTee⛈️ 02:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)