Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Dora (2023)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposed merge of 2023 Pacific hurricane season with Hurricane Dora (2023)

[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 this discussion was keep. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 01:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently notable for a separate article; its effects on the wildfires were extremely minimal to none, and Category 4 hurricanes are common in this basin. Storms like Hurricane Kilo that also crossed over don't have articles. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it has Nanchang17 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are at the wrong page. Anyways, it was a heavy contributor to the Hawaii fires. Nanchang17 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
came from the 2023 pacific hurricane season page Nanchang17 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17: It was not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about Nanchang17 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dora was not a heavy contributor to the fires in any way whatsoever. Any contributions were minor and not 'major' like you claim. - Insendieum on an IP 66.119.200.86 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@66.119.200.86 Minor??????? Dora was one of the causes, and you say minor?? it spread the fires all over the place. But i also think that the discussion is quite poor. Nanchang17 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17 Do you have any sources that can back you up? ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch199811 does Wikipedia count as a reliable source? Nanchang17 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should really read WP:RS and WP:RS/P. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dora was a tertiary contributor to conditions surrounding the fires. Drdpw (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if you do not think it is worthy of an article, it is a pretty lengthy article with nearly 30K bytes and on the Wiki there are sometimes pages with 15k bytes even getting GA? I do not think this should be merged. Insendieum (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be comfortably condensed. We do not need intricate detail that only interests a specific audience.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng how did this become an article Nanchang17 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — This storm was heavily responsible for the devastating wildfires in Hawaii, was the longest lived storm of the 2023 Pacific hurricane season, and was one of the longest lived and longest tracked tropical cyclones in the Pacific on record, as well as the second longest lived storm of 2023 after Cyclone Freddy. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022: It quite literally did not. An NHC forecaster refuted that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think an article should be kept because this storm is one of only a handful of East Pacific storms to make it all the way to the West Pacific and become re-classified as a typhoon upon reaching that basin, and it has a very fascinating meteorological history. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still holds a lot of records, and hurricane kilo has an article Nanchang17 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 against +1 people Nanchang17 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero proof of Dora causing the wildfires, lmao -CarterStormTracking, on a phone 2600:1003:B116:24E5:5477:8419:9DCF:BC80 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ZERO? ABSOLUTELY ZERO?! Wikipedia is not a joke. Also, CarterStormTraking is not used as "proof" in this case, refer to NHC. Nanchang17 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since it has some significant meteorological history despite its minimal (questionable) impacts, similar to other Pacific systems like the aforementioned Kilo, 1978's Fico, 1992's Tina, 1999's Dora, 2014's Genevieve and 2018's Hector, which all have articles for their own. Impacts and desctruction on human population shoudn't be the sole determinator for WP:N, meteorological significance should also matter. ABC paulista (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m neutral on this but I would like to point out that Kilo does have an article, and it also has notable impacts in Hawaii. JayTee⛈️ 16:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, just because this article exists but another doesn’t is a WP:OSE argument. JayTee⛈️ 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is important on Wikipedia. The governing guideline is WP:SPLIT and the size of 2023 Pacific hurricane season does not current merit it at only 34 KB of readable prose per WP:SIZERULE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Dora has a notable enough meteorological history for this to be here. Very few western hemisphere hurricanes become classified as typhoons within their lifetimes. Add in the fact that it was an enabler for the Hawai'i wildfires I think this article is worth staying as is.
zoey (trooncel) 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trooncel: It was not an enabler, as Papin poitned out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely some notability: was partially responsible for Hawaii wildfires, very long article, and a fascinating meteorological history. Definetly notable in my opinion. 2600:4041:47C:400:9A3:F75C:31C:8EDC (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The fact that this small tropical cyclone was able to cross through three basins was incredible to me and it's amazing how it didn't get enough media coverage. Lack of media coverage doesn't preclude an article by the way, so I'm going oppose. ChessEric 23:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Very notable in terms of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, the large difference in atmospheric pressure... Also holds some records like one the few hurricanes that:
1: Crossed 180°E (Westbound), rare
2: Reclassified as Typhoon when crossing 180°E, very rare

Despite lack of media coverage as mentioned by @ChessEric, it is not one of the contributing factors whether or not a hurricane has an article. Nanchang17 (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that argument is very poor as the technical difference between a hurricane and typhoon is nothing and between a typhoon and tropical storm is just strength. Also, I have went through all the crossover events in the last 20 years to see if this holds any weight:
In conclusion, based on these numbers, I would not base an entire article on the fact a storm got to the other basin with hurricane force winds. Also, on a side note, some of the Central Pacific redirects are funky, I noticed it for Pewa and Unala. When I put in Tropical Storm Pewa and Unala, it came up as a redlink. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability lies within the fact that this system formed on NHC's AoR (east of 140W) rather from CPHC's one. Only a handful of systems did so, and of these only John was the other one to achieve/mantain hurricane/typhoon strengh on all three basins. ABC paulista (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we just keep adding clauses though. It had to be a hurricane in all three basins, forming in the East Pacific and dissipating in the west (though I don't think any Atlantic storms made it to the Central Pacific). ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tbf, I don't think that there were systems that travelled through 3 basins aside the EPAC -> WPAC ones, tho I admit that I'm not too familiar with possible southern hemisphere cases. ABC paulista (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The southern hemisphere is messy as the different basins are cut into different responsibilities which I think overlap (for example, Brisbane I think gives names for the Australian and South Pacific region). I also doubt that there could be any crossing from SP to AUS to SI because of Australia (though the Agukabams are crazy ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On SP only FMS give names for systems on its respective region, Melbourne/Brisbane is limited to BoM's AoR. On the subject of basin crossing, technically one could happen involving either Jakarta, Port Moresby or Metservice's AoR, like Jakarta -> BoM -> La Reunión, or Port Moresby -> BoM -> Nadi -> MetService. I'm not aware if any of these ever happened, tho. ABC paulista (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A contributor to Lahaina wildfires that likely killed more than a hundred people and caused billions of dollars in damages. While the media attention is questionable, the impacts are significant. Tropical cyclone records shouldn't matter in my opinion, but this article should exist. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure on what should be done with Dora but I'd rather it be its own thing to make sure all of Dora is in one place and not awkwardly spread out across the Hurricane and Typhoon season. Also, the article has 28,000 bytes and I am not sure what is too specific for general audiences, especially since its less than 30,000 bytes. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, per nom. All of the things within this article can be summed up on the season page, fairly easy. Also it really isn't all that notable for the storm to cross three basins, as it has happened multiple times before, and again can easily be mentioned within the 2023 PHS article. As for the wildfires, Phillipe Papin (a respected meteorologist who works for the National Hurricane Center) as well as a few other meteorologists did a good analysis of this event, and pretty clearly showed that the hurricane in question had a very small role in the wildfires, only really helping to enhance a pressure gradient that was already there to some degree beforehand. In all, nothing within this article really sticks out as notable or as anything worth saving an article for, that we can't mention within the larger season page. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbf, aside from the controversial contibution it gave for the hawaiian wildfires, a lot went on with Dora in terms of meteorological features: It crossed from NHC's AoR all the way to JMA's one, being the eighth (ninth?) one to do so, and only the second one to mantain hurricane/typhoon strength all the way, it sustained Category 4 winds for the longest (for a wide margin against the second place), also being the only one that mantained it for more than 100 hours, and mantained a southwestward motion for a long, long time, which is very unusual for a northern hemisphere system. It was a very odd system. ABC paulista (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it was indeed somewhat odd for a tropical cyclone, is it truly necessary that we give the system its own article? Again these things can be detailed easily within the season article, and don't really require a full article to mention. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it can be truly detailed within the season article, corners would have to be cut and, because of that, significant nuance would be lost. Not trying to rely too much on WP:WAX, but if we could get notable articles from similar systems like Hurricane Dora (1999), Hurricane Hector (2018) or Hurricane Genevieve (2014), I think that we are able with this one too. ABC paulista (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Previous storms with minimal to no impact were still noteworthy enough to make into articles. And not only did Hurricane Dora have still have a relative effect on the wildfires’ origins but it was noted for being the second hurricane on record to cross all three North Pacific basins at that intensity and spent more time as a Category 4 on record in the East Pacific. Lastly, the excerpt for the storm before the generation of its own article was extremely long, significantly longer than other storms, even those without their own article. 35.130.105.90 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given the length of both this article and the 2023 PHS article as a whole I see no need to merge Dora's article. Were Dora part of a less active season then I would considering supporting this motion but as it stands there is good reason to oppose it. Poxy4 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I think a reasonably sized article can be written here that could cover the storm's trek in a manner the season article could not sustain for much of the same reason, Genevieve and Hector could (and IIRC I opposed those mergers as well). I do agree with the fail of the GAN, however. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is more on this page than on the 2023 phs page, merge is not needed. Emersyniscool (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this storm is definetly notable, and has a LOT of information that can't be summed up in the season article. Shmego (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While Dora played pretty much no role in the wildfires, it is meteorologically significant and like others have said, there is too much information to be summed up in the season article. Sria-72 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Dora (2023)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 09:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately failed per immediate failure criterion 1 (WP:GACR), namely that it fails WP:V (GACR 2), because the following are dubious and are likely false: "However, the storm's high winds south of Hawaii, together with an anticyclone to the north of Hawaii, produced strong gradient winds over the islands, which in turn helped cause the 2023 Hawaii wildfires"; "...for portions of the various islands in expectation of the hurricane helping enhance trade winds in conjunction with an ongoing drought.[15] A steep pressure gradient between a strong anticyclone to the north of Hawaii and Dora to the south produced incredibly strong gradient winds..."; it also fails to give WP:DUE weight (GACR 4) considering the amount of media coverage about the storm in connection with the wildfire. The article must also be assessed for general notability as it is questionable whether it even needs its own article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"steep pressure gradient between a strong anticyclone to the north of Hawaii and Dora to the south produced incredibly strong gradient winds..." it is true. Go ask the reviewer who accepted it. Nanchang17 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17 These claims are disputed by NHC meteorologist Philippe Papin and others. And Jasper Deng was the reviewer of this GA nom, and was correct in immediately failing it. Please refrain from bringing up Wikipedia policy/practices without having a thorough understanding of them yourself. JayTee⛈️ 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32 Then who accepted this former draft to be an article Nanchang17 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanchang17 That is irrelevant to this review, simply because someone accepted a draft doesn’t mean they decide what is and isn’t true in an article, our sources do that. The question at hand here is whether this article passes WP:V, and it clearly does not. Nor are any of these comments relevant to a failed GA review. JayTee⛈️ 01:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is about hurricanes, where are the impacts? There's one in the lead but there should be a separate section to explain the hurricane's relationship with the developing anticyclone that led to dry winds and eventual Lahaina wildfire. Until now this article should fail GA. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioJump83 There will be expansion coming soon, please wait. Nanchang17 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioJump83 And also, it is ALL the Hawaii fires, not only lahaina Nanchang17 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but please don't shout or yell when responding to people. MarioJump83 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

We cannot give the article name "Hurricane Dora" to either 1964 or 2023 anymore nor include a year per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As this situation is unique, to avoid placing WP:UNDUE weight to both storms in each basin (since the 1964 and 2023 incarnations are the most notable/researched currently and that retirees are usually the PRIMARYTOPIC), was why the (Atlantic) and (East Pacific) tags to each name. @Jasper Deng: additionally I’m not sure if WP:CONCISE even applies to this situation. As it stands right now the 1964 incarnation is currently violating UNDUE since 2023 is now as equally important given the retirement + close connection to the wildfires per the WMO. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: "equally important" needs to be demonstrated. Nor does the notion of undue weight. Even if both are of equal weight, the years are good-enough disambiguators and you need to show that we shouldn't just move the 1964 one to "(1964)". Plus, you did not capitalize the title correctly ("eastern Pacific", not "Eastern Pacific"), and "Pacific hurricane" would've been a better disambiguator. --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng and MarioProtIV: IMO it could be moved to "Hurricane Dora (Pacific)", since only EPAC name them as hurricanes in the Pacific and it was the one retired on this basin, so there's no need to specify that it was retired on the eastern basin. Overall, I tend to agree more with MarioProtIV, keeping this article's title as it is currently would put 1999's and 2011's articles on the same stand as this one, which would constitute as WP:UNDUE since this one was retired, and those others weren't. ABC paulista (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't. UNDUE does not govern article disambiguation in the way you and Mario believe it does. Article titles exist to disambiguate, not to elevate certain storms above others. The fact of the matter is that there exists no primary topic, not two primary topics.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add an initial at the end (such as R) of the link and/or title to indicate that this is the iteration of the storm that caused it to be removed from naming lists permanently in it's respective region? There are 3 different iterations of Dora that have caused it to be retired.
This system could work as (2023_R) and (1964_R). Thoughts? Trooncel (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This would be too confusing and serves no additional disambiguation purpose. No reliable sources use the "R" suffix proposed here, unlike years in parentheses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @MarioProtIV: I would like to introduce you to Typhoon Bess 1976 & 1979 & Cyclone Cliff 1981 & 2007 which were all retired and now show that this is not a unique situation and has happened before. I also believe that it has been figured out through various requested moves that the fact that a name has been retired does not mean that it is the primary topic and thus automatically deserves the year disambiguation taken away.Jason Rees (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, there is NO primary topic established. Leave the articles as they are right now. Noah, AATalk 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, I think the best way to solve this problem would be to look at the page views within the last 30 days.
There have been 1,337 page views on the 1964 hurricane;
and 2,708 on the 2023 hurricane/typhoon. That is more than double the number of views right there. And it would make ‘23 the primary topic by my books. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page views are not a determiner of a primary topic, as it can often be biased toward more recent events. Hurricane Celia (a retired hurricane from) and Hurricane Celia (2010) get about the same number of views, except for when there is a Category 5 Pacific hurricane and Celia 10 gets a lot more clicks (like when Kristy became a Cat 5 in October). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's The TCR Best Track Update For This Version Of The Track?

[edit]

The Old Color Version Has Been Updated To TCR Best Track, But Not This One, When Will It Get Updated? MrLegacyVideoMaker666 17:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same Thing With Lidia And Norma's New Colored Tracks, They Haven't Been Updated To TCR Best Track MrLegacyVideoMaker666 17:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dora_(2023)&oldid=1257415489"