Talk:Hurricane Isaias

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Isaias article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic / Non-tropical Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance).

Caribbean Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey High‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current storm information section

May I ask why we are putting the Current Storm Information section under the Preparations header and not the Meteorological History header?ChessEric (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We did that for Hurricane Hanna. You can move it if you want to. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 21:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I was just wondering. Wanted to make sure we didn't change the policy in some way.ChessEric (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is standing WPTC policy. The current storm info & advisories are included until the storm dissipates. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having the current storm information under Preparations makes no sense - being entirely meteorological data it's far more appropriate under MH. @LightandDark2000: think you misread here, the question here isn't whether to include, but where to include. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you were right. I was thinking about the inclusion of the information as a whole, not specifically its placement. :P LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting Information Regarding Hurricane Records

There is contradicting information in this article about how many days this hurricane broke the 2005 hurricane's record by. Is it 6 days, as it says in the summary at the top, or is it 9 days, as it says in the Meteorological History section of the article? Or are both incorrect? Please fix this. 2600:8801:2401:A400:1DD1:229F:279C:5CBD (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are both wrong. I don't know what the original writers were referring to - tropical cyclone formation (becoming a tropical depression) or attainment of tropical storm status. If it's the latter, its actually 8 days. Even if they were referring to tropical cyclone development (which would be quite confusing, given the current wording), the dates given would still be wrong (5 days, in this case). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woman found dead after a rush of water crashed her car, found 2 days later

This was in Rincon, Puerto Rico. She was dragged by a river during the storm and was found today.

https://www.primerahora.com/noticias/policia-tribunales/notas/hallan-cuerpo-de-mujer-arrastrada-por-rio-en-rincon/

https://www.telemundopr.com/noticias/puerto-rico/hallan-cuerpo-en-quebrada-de-rincon-2/2110832/

her belongings were found yesterday

https://www.noticel.com/la-calle/20200731/encuentran-pertenencias-de-mujer-arrastrada-por-crecida-de-rio-en-rincon/

i don't know in what way to add it to the article so this is here for someone to put when they can ~SML • TP 16:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19

How do we include the additional complications the pandemic causes for this year's hurricanes?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Measures taken are going to vary from storm to storm, but we have put a section in on Tropical cyclones in 2020 to generally talk about the overall impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help work on a Draft:Hurricanes in the Bahama Archipelago?

See Draft:Hurricanes in the Bahama Archipelago. I added the ones from last year and this year, plus the Cat 5 that struck in 1932. It could use some more research, but I'm a bit busy at the moment. So, I figured I'd create a draft, in case anyone wondered about Isaias and its place in history among hurricanes in the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos. I included them together because they're so close together, and are geographically the same entity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added hurricane Andrew if that helped. I like hurricanes (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also, are you able to upload damage in The Bahamas from hurricane Andrew. I added more storms. I like hurricanes (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a picture from the damage in the Bahamas I like hurricanes (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on New Jersey

This sentence : "A wind gust of 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) was recorded at the Ocean County Airport in Ocean County. This was not from inside the storm itself, but rather a thunderstorm from an outermost rainband. " is dubious. The reference cited @NWS_MountHolly (August 3, 2020). "https://twitter.com/NWS_MountHolly/status/1290438599100571656" (Tweet). Retrieved 2020-08-04 – via Twitter. does not say that it is related to Isaias. It is in fact, the storm is related to a frontal system (https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/NationalForecastChart/map.php#).

Pierre cb (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, found this which states the thunderstorms weren't related. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak article?

There are at least nine tornadoes, and those all happened *today*. If anyone is familiar with tornado outbreak articles, one might be needed to focus on the tornado outbreak, so this article can be more about the storm as a whole. Isaias is soon moving into the most populous part of the country with sustained winds of up to 70 mph, and I expect there to be more power outages. I already split off the paragraph in Mid-Atlantic for tornadoes, and perhaps this is premature considering it's... yanno... happening rather than a work of historic topic that we usually write about. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Glad we were in agreement on that one.ChessEric (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington Fires

Hello, several minutes before Isaias made landfall, fires broke out in the suburbs of Wilmington that left several houses on fire, 911 dispatch & twitter tweets confirmed that fires happened and I’m wondering if it’s okay to put the description of the fires in the impacts section or not? HurricaneExpert192000 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneExpert192000: Already done.ChessEric (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

WATERFORD CT TREE ISAIAS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

damage estimates $

I've heard the news state/speculate the damage in NC to be over 12 billion dollars - but I have not seen a print source to that effect. There should be some general estimates from flyovers of the states hit by now - anyone have anything in-print on the matter? 50.111.15.47 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@50.111.15.47: That's probably fake; Dorian only caused 5.07 billion. Wait until AON's estimate comes out. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 18:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated cost of Isaias

Hi all:

I found this BNN Boomberg expected cost at 4.2 billions $US by a group of insurance modelers (Karen Clark & Co.): https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/hurricane-isaias-expected-to-cost-insurers-4-billion-in-u-s-1.1477939

I let you decide what to do with it.

Pierre cb (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb: Thanks! The estimate was very helpful in determining the total cost of damage for Isaias. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Track

The storm track appears to be color coded and shape coded for intensity and status. The simple text says that on the page. The more descriptive text available when clicking on the image link says it more explicitly and even adds the Safir-Simpson scale, but also claims the color and shape data is described in a legend that appears in neither the main webpage nor in the linked page for the image. So there is no hope beyond guessing in understanding the color and shape coding of the graph. Thanks... 71.120.2.107 (talk)mjd —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaias Cost

Isaias is the costliest Category 1 Hurricane, when the damage isn't normalized, so I think that would be a good addition to the article. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right... ~~wait, what about Hurricane Stan of 2005?~~ 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Hurricane Stan. You are right. Adding it in:

Done 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with including this sentence as it is entirely original research. Going off the table at List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes leads to issues with verifiability since no reliable source explicitly mentions as such. The wording used is also factually incorrect since it neglects accounting for inflation, which would likely place Stan back at the top (as a rough calculation this suggests Stan's damage was $5.3 billion in 2020 USD). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split the impacts?

Consensus is against splitting the impacts before substantially expanding the article. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The storm caused more than $4 billion on the US, and inflicted heavy damage on areas (notably NE. NY, NJ, PA, and DE) that usually get tropical cyclone effects. Thoughts? Maybe an effect article for the NE? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is only 26 kB, which generally doesn't justify a split according to the recommendations at WP:SIZERULE. Aftermath info is lacking, however, so that could easily go up. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support. The prose is small, but it will go up as KN2731 said. SMB9 9thx my edits 11:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just add the impact here. The article is on the short side now. States like NJ, NY, PA, and New England could easily be 2-3 paragraphs and it would be fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hurricanehink: As KN said, the impact in the States and the aftermath can easily go up. I'll try to work on it after I get finished with Barry and Beryl. Or maybe you or another user can start working on it :) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure it'll go up, but that doesn't mean it should be split off right away. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Hurricanehink. The article is short. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but after expanding the Aftermath section, so that it can meet the split size. After all, it was a really bad storm, the first billion-dollar hurricane or disaster (I think) of 2020. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, if we do end up doing the "effects of isaias in *blank*", which Impacts would we split? The Caribbean? The Mid-Atlantic? Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I've started something. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. --170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partly oppose I don't like the idea of splitting all the U.S. impacts. However, splitting out the individual states of New York and North Carolina would be fine.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Focus on the main article first. It's only 26 kB prose at present so there's plenty of room for expansion. If it becomes too long after expansion then it can be split off, but the focus should always be on the primary article as that's the most viewed. The impact sub-articles tend to just rot away (but not always) once split off unless they're written thoroughly upon creation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Give me an example. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas - I split that off too soon, thinking there would be too much impact for the main article, but the main article ended up being where the information was updated, while the sub article stayed the same as it was a few days after the storm. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is how much it's changed in a year. It's unlikely that Isaias will even be retired, why do we need an impacts subarticle? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: that’s wrong.....it did $4.73 billion in damages. I personally don’t care. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at my diff above. I accept that Isaias has been retired, but I am a little mad at some really rude comments that CyclonicallyDeranged posted to me. And now I will open an ANI case. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't retired, but it likely will be in April Chicdat. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it will. Anyway, are we splitting the main article or not? Consensus seems to be against it. Pinging the usual myriad of helpful, experienced WPTC editors: Hurricanehink, Destroyeraa, Weatherman27, SMB99thx. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus, we should not split the main article. SMB9 9thx my edits 11:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will close it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:45, 17 November 2020 (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.

Split the impacts (2.0)

Withdraw

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.

The last time it failed because the article wasn't expanded, but now that it is 109 kB, I am reproposing. Previous discussion is below.

Past discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oppose Again, prose size is only 26K. The impacts subarticles, as Cyclonebiskit said in the above discussion, will just rot away. The impacts practically can't be split, the article is so short. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split the impacts?

Consensus is against splitting the impacts before substantially expanding the article. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The storm caused more than $4 billion on the US, and inflicted heavy damage on areas (notably NE. NY, NJ, PA, and DE) that usually get tropical cyclone effects. Thoughts? Maybe an effect article for the NE? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is only 26 kB, which generally doesn't justify a split according to the recommendations at WP:SIZERULE. Aftermath info is lacking, however, so that could easily go up. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support. The prose is small, but it will go up as KN2731 said. SMB9 9thx my edits 11:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just add the impact here. The article is on the short side now. States like NJ, NY, PA, and New England could easily be 2-3 paragraphs and it would be fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hurricanehink: As KN said, the impact in the States and the aftermath can easily go up. I'll try to work on it after I get finished with Barry and Beryl. Or maybe you or another user can start working on it :) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure it'll go up, but that doesn't mean it should be split off right away. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Hurricanehink. The article is short. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but after expanding the Aftermath section, so that it can meet the split size. After all, it was a really bad storm, the first billion-dollar hurricane or disaster (I think) of 2020. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, if we do end up doing the "effects of isaias in *blank*", which Impacts would we split? The Caribbean? The Mid-Atlantic? Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I've started something. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. --170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partly oppose I don't like the idea of splitting all the U.S. impacts. However, splitting out the individual states of New York and North Carolina would be fine.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Focus on the main article first. It's only 26 kB prose at present so there's plenty of room for expansion. If it becomes too long after expansion then it can be split off, but the focus should always be on the primary article as that's the most viewed. The impact sub-articles tend to just rot away (but not always) once split off unless they're written thoroughly upon creation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Give me an example. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas - I split that off too soon, thinking there would be too much impact for the main article, but the main article ended up being where the information was updated, while the sub article stayed the same as it was a few days after the storm. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is how much it's changed in a year. It's unlikely that Isaias will even be retired, why do we need an impacts subarticle? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: that’s wrong.....it did $4.73 billion in damages. I personally don’t care. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at my diff above. I accept that Isaias has been retired, but I am a little mad at some really rude comments that CyclonicallyDeranged posted to me. And now I will open an ANI case. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't retired, but it likely will be in April Chicdat. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it will. Anyway, are we splitting the main article or not? Consensus seems to be against it. Pinging the usual myriad of helpful, experienced WPTC editors: Hurricanehink, Destroyeraa, Weatherman27, SMB99thx. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus, we should not split the main article. SMB9 9thx my edits 11:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will close it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:45, 17 November 2020 (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.

But now, I am reproposing. Article expansion occured. Maybe not for the US as a whole, but certain states like North Carolina, which got hit hard. Damage estimates are hard to find, but 4 people died. I will find a source soon. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2020 (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.

Bad image

The image is so strecthed out, it makes the precursor more readable then the storm. I suggest cutting most of the renmant wave off, especially as the wave is not near as important as the storm. --Hurricane Tracker 495 14:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495:

Done Unless I’m mistaken which image it is. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare"

Can ya'll settle whether to called this a "rare" outbreak here and not in edit summaries. Please don't edit war. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

WEAK CONSENSUS

There is a weak consensus in favor of merge. I recommend a WP:BOLD merge, followed by discussion here on how best to smoothly integrate the new material. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The main article is only about 5,100 words, and the tornado article is 2977 words, so it could be merged in its entirety, and Isaias's article still wouldn't be too long. Seeing as it's been four years, I don't think there is going to be a significant amount of new information for this article, so merging the tornado outbreak article would improve this article (currently rated C-class). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As one of the editors that created the article, I believe that it should stay for the information it has, especially since SPC outlooks aren't covered in tropical cyclone articles. The tornado tables are much too long to put in the article, and they haven't been modernized as well. There are also too many tornadoes to just decide to add link directing viewers to the tornado list page months. ChessEric 05:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SPC information could be included. That's not some set policy, either, as I included the SPC outlook for Hurricane Hilary's article. Also, I don't think the tables would be too long, as I said the Isaias article is only 5,100 words, well below where size restraints become an issue. Also, the tornadoes were a significant factor in the impacts, and some of them are already mentioned. Plus, the tornado tables could always be collapsable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SPC information is best left out of a hurricane article. We've tried merging tornado outbreak articles to hurricane articles in the past with poor results. There is more than enough information in that article to justify keeping it, especially since the tornadoes alone may have been the most memorable thing about this storm. ChessEric 00:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Meets notability requirement for tornado outbreak; a merge might bloat the article. 69.118.235.3 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Vote by sockpuppet stricken. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The tornado information could easily be merged into this article without making it overly large or giving too much weight to the tornadoes over the primary storm impact. Drdpw (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak article meets notability for an outbreak article. I can see why it wouldn't be a concern, but to me from a length perspective, they make sense to keep separated. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a support vote because I was too stupid to clarify that. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t it be an oppose, since a support means you want the two articles together, and an oppose means you want them separate? Downerr2937 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The tornado outbreak is notable enough for a separate article, as it resulted in 2 deaths, 8 significant tornadoes, and tens of millions of dollars in damage. 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:2948:60F4:ECA:A9AA (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Sock vote stricken --_ZZ^Z 'S 06:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is covered in the main article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above --_ZZ^Z 'S 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Isaias produced a significant tornado outbreak. Ida and Beryl also had tornado outbreaks similar to Isaias and they still have articles for them. Also, if the tornado outbreak for Isaias is to be merged, it would be too much and harder to navigate; it would make the article too big, so I don’t think it should be merged. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

39 tornadoes is not too much to merge in. The significant tornadoes already get a mention, and I don’t think we need every piece of detail on every F0 or F1 that Isaias spawned. Most of the weaker ones had more basic impacts that can be summarized, like downed trees and power lines. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But still though, and the table in the main article would be problematic. I think we should just keep it… VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table is what makes it clunky. Check out Hurricane Cindy in 2005, which produced more tornadoes than Isaias. That's how I'm proposing we handle the tornado outbreak in the Isaias article, which already mentions 19 of the 39 tornadoes (half of them), including all of the strong tornadoes (EF2 or greater). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2024 (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.

Follow up

OK, I merged the tornado outbreak, and the word count is now 6,800. I'd specifically like to ask ChessEric (talk · contribs) and VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk · contribs), who voiced their opposition. I included every bit of information from the tornado outbreak article that wasn't in the Isaias article, so I'd like to check - does that work? I think the article is in better shape now, having all of the information in one article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to add play-by-play damage in the article, especially individual roads in the middle of nowhere. That’s what the summary in the charts were for. ChessEric 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that can probably be cut down in the future. I just didn't want to miss any information in the merger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I mostly staying out of it since I didn’t agree with it in the first place given how many strong tornadoes took place. ChessEric 17:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as the information is on Wikipedia, that's the important thing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]