Jump to content

Talk:Cyclones Rona and Frank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cyclone Rona-Frank)
Former good article nomineeCyclones Rona and Frank was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 7, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Cyclone Rona of 1999 uprooted trees that survived a 1934 cyclone that hit the same area in Queensland, Australia?

MH

[edit]

Impact

[edit]

72 inches of rain

[edit]

I really think there should be more flood-related impact from this massive amount of rainfall, hence why I rated the article as start and not C. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Expand MH, the storm later became Cyclone Frank, after "dissipating" [1]. In general, the article needs to be expanded and it is completely lacking aftermath. The damage bill is >$150 million and flooding in one river reached 72 ft Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]

Some anaylsis from Post storm anaylsis from Nadi would be good here (eg use the SS). Also if i remember correctly Nadi were using the F nos at this time if so that needs to be noted.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Nadi "F" designation (16F) and sources from the Nadi Seasonal Summary. However, the information in it is basically a rehash of what is found in the Australian Met Magazine and the Gary Padgett February 1999 Summary. — Iune(talk) 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Rona-Frank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you re-organize the lede so it's two evenly-spaced paragraphs?
  • Was the impact really that "devastating"? If not, find a better choice of wording in the opening sentence
Changed to "damaging" — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causing 150 million dollars (1999 USD; 198 million 2011 USD)" - any reason why you say "dollars" as opposed to the traditional "$150 million"? It happens in the lede and in the body of the article
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose one of my bigger questions is how closely related the two cyclones were. Is there precedent to combining two articles for two differently named tropical cyclones that were only related via a common upper-level circulation? And IIRC, usually the upper-level circulation is some form of anticyclone for ventilation. How could the upper-level circulation be the same for both storms? More importantly, is there any more evidence that the two storms were actually related?
  • Could you give the intensity estimate for both landfalls in the lede?
  • "over Eastern Australia" - why is "Eastern" capitalized? You do it twice, and as far as I know, there is no official area called "Eastern Australia"
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dissipation of the trough caused the upper levels of the tropical low to become favorable for development and as a result, the system rapidly intensified on February 10" - whoa. First, you could make that a little simpler about the upper levels ("the trough's dissipation provided favorable upper-level conditions"). Next, how can the system rapidly intensify if it hadn't formed yet? And was it actually an example of rapid intensification? Or were you exaggerating a bit?
The BoM called it "rapid intensification" in their report. [4]
  • You should link to the AUS scale when you say "category one tropical cyclone"
  • "310 km (195 miles)" - why is km abbreviated, but miles is written out?
  • Watch out for split infinitives
    • "to rapidly accelerate"
    • "to definitely identify"
    • "to rapidly intensify"
  • "At 1200 UTC" - as it's been more than one sentence since the last date reference, you should re-clarify it
  • "Despite this, the circulation at 850 hPa was still tracked as it curved back to the east to the Coral Sea" - what does 850 hPa mean?
  • The whole process of Rona getting its sex change is a little confusing. It'd be helpful to more carefully walk the reader from dissipation to reformation, particularly in the four day period that is conveniently missing
  • "the storm was centered 430 miles (690 km) west-northwest of Nouméa, New Caledonia" - you had km (mi) earlier in the article. You need consistency!
Switched — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still inconsistency in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "18 hours later" - don't start a sentence with a number
  • "Monitoring of the system ceased on February 27" - is there any way you could combine that short sentence with a previous one?
Merged sentences — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but now it's pretty awkwardly written. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention the state of disaster, it's sort of awkward, since you refer to any damage for the first time. Try reorganizing for better flow.
  • "Significant crop and infrastructure damage was found" - who found it? Alternatively, just say "strong winds left significant crop and infrastructure damage..."
Changed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a storm in 1934 have any relevance to a storm in 1999?
Removed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't have to be flat-out removed. You removed the bit that the cyclone downed some trees, which is certainly encyclopediac. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Queensland.[18] In Queensland" - could you find another way to word that to avoid such redundancy?
  • "in damages was reported to have been caused by Cyclone Rona" - who reported the damage? It's pretty weak writing seeing passive voice used so often
  • Is there any more Australian impact? You only mention what happened in Queensland, and aside from the 14 affected houses and the crop damage, there is little talk on what caused the $150 million in damage
  • "Despite passing only 27 kilometres (17 mi) west of Nouméa, the overall damage in New Caledonia was minimal" - you should probably clarify that's from Frank, not Rona
Added mention of Frank — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, landslides were reported on some coastal roads and crop damage was found in the northeastern side of the island" - what do the landslides have to do with the crop damage? It's sort of a run-on. Try re-organizing the content in the paragraph for better flow
  • Also, in the New Caledonia section, you switch back to spelling out kilometres. Please fix and be consistent
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the comments now, I can't do anymore today as I have to go to a competition today. I'll try to finish them tomorrow. — Iune(talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's been too long without progress to the article, so I'm failing it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Cyclone Rona–Frank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Rona–Frank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover

[edit]

Jason Rees, please could you provide RSMC's Nadi data that shows that they consder Rona and Frank to be the same system? I'm not finding it, and BoM certainly doesn't consider it. ABC paulista (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: Have a read of Nadis seasonal summuary. It quite clearly states that Rona redeveloped into Frank. Jason Rees (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees, the Nadi's links used as source on this article (sources 11 and 17) are dead, and the archived urls lead to error pages. I won't judge without reading it, but one cyclone "redeveloping" into another doesn't usually means that they are considered the same. We discussed such matters before, you already know how it works. ABC paulista (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Remember that different organisations do different things and what maybe normal in one basin may not be normal in another. Anyway here is RSMC Nadi's Seasonal Summary which states that Tropical Cyclone Frank originated in the Australian Region, being a re-development of Tropical Cyclone Rona. As a result, I oppose any movement of this article to anything bar Tropical Cyclone Rona-Frank, especially since the title has been stable since 2011.Jason Rees (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees:, yeah they state that Rona re−developed from Frank's remnants, but re-development ≠ being considered the same, and assuming such is WP:OR, especially for a basin whose policy is to not rename storms that were already named by BoM when they cross over their boundaries, and this not being the case further implies that they aren't considered to be the same system. For such WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, I'd expect direct confirmation that Rona and Frank are considered to be the same, but the source ou provided didn't do such. You reverted me based on Nadi's Best Track, so I'd expect to see Rona included there, otherwise all your evidence is WP:SYNTH-based. The title being it for a long time has no meaning, just that it has been misniforming its readers for a long time, which is objectively bad and against the guidelines. ABC paulista (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: Tropical Cyclone Frank originated in the Australian Region, being a re-development of Tropical Cyclone Rona [...] After Rona weakened over the Queensland coast, its remnant low to mid-level circulation tracked southward, re-emerging over water and then drifted eastwards. At 1800 UTC on the 18th, the system had just crossed into Nadi's AOR and was named Frank, while located about 350 miles west-northwest of Noumea. Nadi clearly states that Rona redeveloped from Rona's LLCC/MLC remnant low. It's WMO policy for remnant lows to be renamed if it crosses into a new basin. Destroyer (Alternate account) 22:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also have to remember here that any tropical cyclone that weakens below tropical cyclone intensity within the Australian region, will generally be considered a remnant low even if it's still tropical.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Tropical Low category ≠ remnant low. Tropical lows are more akin to the NHC's Tropical Depressions. ABC paulista (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: I am well aware that tropical lows is the BoM's term for tropical disturbance/tropical depression, however, the fact remains that Tropical cyclones that weaken into tropical lows are still referred to as remnant lows at times regardless of how you want to wish to dress it up.Jason Rees (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Not at all. AFAIK, at least in BoM's case, tropical lows are still monitored, receive warnings and are included on the Best Track. Remnant lows are just warned when they still threat land. And even if you were right, re-development from remnant low don't mean that the system will still be considered the same as before, plenty of times the sytem that originated from other's remnants received a new assignment, you know that. ABC paulista (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: that still doesn't mean that they are considered to be one an the same, we have plenty of cases of systems that formed directly from other ones and are still considered to be separate instances, like Amanda/Cristobal, Vardah/ARB 02, Upana/Chanchu, Matmo/Bulbul, Katia/Otis, Katrina/Victor-Cindy, and so on. And AFAIK, this WMO policy was created some years after Rona and Frank, around at the same time that it was determined that systems that mantained tropical status during a crossover wouldn't be renamed anymore. It was sometime around the 2000s, before each basin had its own policy, and Nadi's one was not to rename crossovers. ABC paulista (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: "this WMO policy was created some years after Rona and Frank, around at the same time that it was determined that systems that mantained tropical status during a crossover wouldn't be renamed anymore". If that is so, then Nadi was obliged to rename the system. Also, even if Rona wasn't a tropical low when it moved over, it maintained its low-level and mid-level circulation centers, which makes it a direct crossover storm (e.g. Tropical Depression Eleven/TS Hermine 2010). Destroyer (Alternate account) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa:, that's incorrect. Like I said earlier, before the WMO determined these standardized policies, every RSMC/TCWC had freedom to choose on how to handle the cases of crossovers. Some, like NHC and Meteo-France, chose to rename the system that crossed into their boundaries, while others like FMS and JTWC/JMA, chose to just mantain their original names, so no agency was "obliged" to anything regarding this matter at the time, every agency had their own modus operandi. And 11E/Hermine case is different, by two aspects: 1) On 11E's Report, it is directly stated that it moved into Atlantic basin to become Tropical Storm Hermine, which is a way stronger and more decisive statement than saying that it was a "re-development". And 2) The last point on 11E's best track coincides with Hermine's first, which make them both having a unified, continuous track, while between Rona's final point and Frank's first one there's a 4-day gap of nothing. ABC paulista (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: There's a gap of nothing there because the track data in the image is based on JTWC data. Destroyer (Alternate account) 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa:, then could you please provide the best track data with the points in-between? BoM's data doesn't contain it, and I couldn't find Nadis one. ABC paulista (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: You are basically trying to say that because we have deemed these systems not to be the same system even though they were, we should ignore the evidence from RSMC Nadi in their seasonal summuary which says that Rona's remnant tropical low redeveloped into Frank. This is precisely why i feel that we should go on a case by case basis rather than a one size fits all rule.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: No, I'm saying that by separating Rona and Frank's names by a dash, the title is stating that these systems are officially considered to be one and the same (based on the standard adopted within the WPTC) and that is just a mere assumption based on WP:SYNTH of the RSMC's reports. You are assuming that Nadi consider both to be the same system based on their wording, when there is no strong evidence at all that this is the truth (re-development doesn't always mean continuity, or "revival"). And to avoid such WP:OR, it would be better to adhere to the new title format, like with Amanda and Cristobal, Matmo and Bulbul, Vardah and ARB 02, etc. ABC paulista (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since the last post and people stopped addressing the points I brought to this matter, and failed to prove that these systems are considered to be one and the same, so I'll assume WP:SILENCE and move back to the current precendence. ABC paulista (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista:
  1. WP:SILENCE is not a guideline, but a supplementary essay.
  2. Cut-and-paste moves are extremely discouraged.
  3. Two editors disagree with you, which shows that this action is contentious.
  4. You did not attempt to ping the involved editors for a response.
  5. Involved editors are not supposed to close discussions with no clear consensus, or otherwise perform any action supporting or opposing it. Chlod (say hi!) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod:
  1. Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, explanatory supplements are somewhat above essays, since they directly complement guidelines and policies;
  2. I normally wouldn't do that, but it wasn't allowing me to either move back to the previous title, or to revert the last move;
  3. They disagreed. Where are these two editors now? It's been a week since they last showed up, I respected WP:TALK recommendation of waiting for a week for a response;
  4. I don't have to ping them, I don't have to ask for their permission to do stuff, they don't WP:OWN the article for such. They left here of their own will, they didn't respond my last counterarguments and responses, they WP:SILENCE their disagreements;
  5. WP:SILENCE is a consensus, albeit a weaker one. And WP:WHENCLOSE state that if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion.
More important, do you have any opinion regarding this issue on itself? ABC paulista (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: I normally wouldn't do that, but it wasn't allowing me to either move back to the previous title, or to revert the last move;. That is still not a valid excuse for a cut-and-paste move. Also, if you want to move the page back so badly, start a requested move. Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa I usually don't like to do things this way, it feels too forceful IMO. I prefer to seek consensus on such matter, but I'll consider your suggestion. ABC paulista (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Was alerted here due to the cutpaste move from the WPTC Discord) No matter the reason, cut paste moves require history merges if left standing, and from a copyright perspective that is unacceptable. We spend hours cleaning up extensive histories of copyright violations and a little histmerge request may take much longer than expected if it's complex. No comment on the dispute at hand, but do not cut paste move again, please. The folks at WP:RMT (technical moves) are really good, but they won't accept a move without consensus, which you don't have. I would suggest using some form of dispute resolution, such as WP:DRN or starting an Request for Comment or Requested Move discussion to determine consensus. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll consider these options, even if they all feel somewhat forceful. But WP:SILENCE is a form of consesus. Albeit the weakest one, it's still a consensus. ABC paulista (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is almost never a consensus to cut paste move. Cut pastes are bolder than Requested Moves. Beliefs like excusing cut paste moves repeatedly can get you blocked for not understanding how copyright works. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not excusing my WP:CPM, I was wrong there, period (Sorry for any inconvenience, BTW). What I'm saying that on a move, whatever permitted process might be, WP:SILENCE is a valid consensus, a valid argument. ABC paulista (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: I don't have an opinion on the matter. Procedural errors (specifically matters dealing with copyright adherence) like this one are simply something I clean up. I'm very surprised that you choose to keep referring to SILENCE, even though it covers consensus when there's no evidence of disagreement. You might want to re-read that supplement, as it describes a case different from the current. This seems like the strongest argument you have for making the move, however this argument is definitely not a substitute of this current attempt at raising consensus and it definitely is not consensus because there clearly is dissent. Chlod (say hi!) 00:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chlod The last disagreements on the subject were a week ago, so there was enough time to establish WP:SILENCE. Last week I asked Destroyera to provide source for their claim and it wasn't provided, and I rebutted Jason Rees's argument and no counterargument was provided, and as such is a clear case of The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.. But no, WP:SILENCE hasn't been my strongest argument. If you read the discussion, you'll see that my argument is that this title is a case of WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. This is what has been unchallenged. WP:SILENCE was only a "tool" I used to try to reach consensus when there's an apparent unwillingness, or lack of interest, to discuss the matter. All I'm trying to avoid is WP:STONEWALLING by withdrawing from a discussion to force a "no consensus" state to mantain the status quo (not saying that this is consensual, it might be unintentional), this is not a situation that I'm willing to accept. ABC paulista (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED: After reading through the comments there does seem to be a consensus to move the article. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclones Rona–Frank → Cyclones Rona and Frank – Per WPTC's naming convention, using brackets to spearate names is appliable only to systems that are considered to be the same and were renamed after crossing basins. These two aren't offically considered to be the same system, so to avoid misleading the reader into believing that they are considered as such we should adopt the new naming convention, applied for systems that are closely related to each other without being considered to be the same, like Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal, Cyclones Gulab and Shaheen and Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul. ABC paulista (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose per my comments previously. I feel that @ABC paulista: is trying to force us to recognise that Rona-Frank were not the same system, when RSMC Nadi and the BoM are quite clear that Rona's remnant tropical low redeveloped into Frank, just because she does not like the fact that there are no tracking points on the map and wants Wikipedia to be consistent on a subject where it can not be. As a result, she is trying to use Wikipedia policies to force us to move this article to Cyclones Rona and Frank based on some misguided belief that the readers are going to think that a dash means that its officially the same system.Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm a man, I'm a "he". Also, It's my personal belief that in cases similar to Rona and Frank they should be considered the same system, but that's not how they are treating it. I won't try to force my own WP:POV on a subject when there's weak to no support form the official agencies, because they are the ones who matter most, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims demand exceptional sourcing. Rememeber that before I came here, the article treated the two storms as the same entity, so it wasn't just the title that was misleading. The title was just part of it, and it's the only misleading part that is still to be corrected. ABC paulista (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both our self-identified genders, and the new article title. Yea, Frank is a redevelopment, but it's not like when AUS storms used to get renamed upon crossing into SWIO, and it's two names for the same tropical cyclone. We now have some precedent for two related cyclones that may or may not be the same tropical cyclone. Since this example crosses basins, I'd rather go for the "and" than the ambiguous hyphen. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per HurricaneHink. This seems like a simple move to me but with some here nothing is ever easy. United States Man (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have an opinion on this RM, but ABC paulista, a mass ping of WPTC users isn't needed and would likely just be notifying a lot of people, like me, who aren't inclined to weigh in. CodingCyclone please ping/my wreckage 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Engagement has been too low on this to ever reach a resolution, so I needed to call people to be aware of this discussion. Unfortunately I don't know if there's a better way to call peope to join the discussion, this is just the way I know. Honestly, I don't know who'd be interested on it and I don't have a method to figure it out, so I called the most active users on the project to, at least, be aware of such. ABC paulista (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been pinged to participate. I have participated. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now I honestly don't know right now, although that could be because I'm in an online chess tournament right now. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supporting CodingCyclone's comment here: mass-pinging of users is disruptive. It would have been better to make a message on WPTC's talk page. Chlod (say hi!) 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I though of that, but not many note posts on WPTC's talk page (I ceartainly don't), and that could lead to some future problems. Amanda/Cristobal case is an example of how little reach a WPTC discussion has, and how that can lead to futher tumultuous and problematic developments. Also, I wanted to avoid WP:DISCUSSFORK and WP:MULTI, which led me to some issues recently. ABC paulista (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that not many do it doesn't mean you shouldn't too. This is a wiki-wide practice that isn't being performed by WPTC, just like attributing article splits. By "make a message", I meant something like {{Please see}}, not the entire discussion itself. Chlod (say hi!) 21:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also worth mentioning that this WikiProject has been warned previously for canvassing issues, so this is not something you should take lightly. Chlod (say hi!) 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I'm not part of the project, so I don't have a way to always be aware of these issues, and I don't see how I would have an "obligation" to watch (and partake on) the discussions there. About the {{Please see}}, I'll keep it in mind for future references, but I don't think that it would be much effective, especially considering that this proposition is already mentioned on the Article alerts board, and it didn't generate much traction. ABC paulista (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're overestimating the amount of people who actually look at the article alerts board. Posting a message generates a watchlist notification, which will attract editors instead of some passing edit on the article alerts board. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Chlod (say hi!) 22:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't knew that the article alerts board didn't generate notifications. Thanks for the clarification. ABC paulista (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the lesser obligation: this gives you less excuse in pinging only specific users of the project. Given that, consider this a warning against canvassing users in the future by mass-pinging. This is not a good way to build proper consensus. Chlod (say hi!) 22:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't consider that as a warning, because I've never had the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, so I'll take this more as an advice. ABC paulista (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look, @ABC paulista, I don't see any problem with the redirect. But there you need some specific criteria, about decisions by the Bureau of Meteorology and Météo-France. In a stylistic way, I agree with the new nomenclature. André L P Souza (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure what you mean by this, especially regarding Météo-France which isn't involved in this case. ABC paulista (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support Per Hurricanehink. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I have no say in this discussion I'll let everyone else handle it sorry that I don't have a clear consensus on it. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per Jason Rees HurricaneEdgar 06:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If there is no official agency that refers to this system explicitly as "Cyclone Rona-Frank", then I believe this article should be titled "Cyclones Rona and Frank". Also, I do believe that use of a hyphen indicates one uninterrupted storm, which isn't the case here. JayTee🕊️ 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As no source—either official or reliable secondary—makes reference to a "Cyclone Rona-Frank" and as this is not a case of one uninterrupted storm, I'm of the opinion that this article should be titled "Cyclones Rona and Frank". Drdpw (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the comments of other users here, especially those of HurricaneHink's above. The article itself says that the remnant low to mid-level circulation was tracked until it eventually redeveloped into Frank. This reminds me somewhat of the case with Amanda and Cristobal, where the cyclone dissipated but was still tracked, and then was given a new name when the system redevoloped. We should treat this article the same way, and give it the "and"in the title. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article itself even seperates the cyclones, as you can clearly see in the lead of the article. It even shows different designations. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – Either title is fine with me. This storm was clearly the same system (specifically, a regeneration of one storm in another basin), and that needs to be acknowledged, but it's also a fact that the BoM and RSMC Nadi still assigned this storm two names. I personally prefer that the dashed name title is reserved for the storms that were recognized as official crossovers from the RSMC(s), while using the "and" title for the regenerated storms that weren't. I will note that since we already have a precedent of using this kind of titling with Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal, Cyclones Gulab and Shaheen, and others, there is a basis for using the same format for this article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support – This is a bit similar to Cyclones Katrina and Victor–Cindy. Frank regenerated from the remnants of Rona, just like how Katrina's remnant low became Victor. But honestly I am okay with either title, like LightandDark2000. Vida0007 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Moved ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 22:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel: I have restored the article to the correct title per the consensus in the above RM. I assume your move was simply made in error? NoahTalk 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclones_Rona_and_Frank&oldid=1210961532"