Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

That system in the Atlantic

What are your thoughts on the system in the Atlantic right now? Some people are classifying it as a subtropical storm, yet NOAA and the NHC have not designated the system as anything, including an invest. Sahapamowe (talk!) 14:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: it is now an invest but they marked it a 0% for 2 days and 5 days... Sahapamowe (talk!) 14:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, they are for discussing things related to the article, such as images, references ETC. Thanks. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Other System

Someone remove that other system title the NHC does not monitor Tropical Storms during the winter it’s obviously not gonna form makes no sense whatsoever. It’s January it too cold for Storms to form, and besides it’s way too early for this. Start doing this In May or June when Hurricane Season actually Starts. 2601:8C:417F:B80:34D5:FD17:76A9:4802 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's false. They monitor the tropics year-round, just don't issue TWOs on all storms. This one is different because it is, by many standards, a subtropical storm. Storms have formed in January in the past and will continue to form in January. We don't put every Invest on here, only notable (usually named) storms and those that otherwise have been considered (sub)tropical or impactful by some important source. Whether this qualifies or not is up to debate, but your objections are unfounded. INFOWeather1 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Have to say this thing does deserve its place. It created a pretty sizeable internet buzz with several pro mets saying this is either fully subtropical/tropical or just about to be tropical. I think thats enough notability by itself to keep a mention until the TCRs for 2023 roll in later this year HavocPlayz (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

this should definitely be in the other systems sec to on, just like 96C from the EPac or Stephanie from 2016. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The system belongs in the other storms section because it was a rather notable storm for the time of year. The NHC did acknowledge the system, but noted it didn't have time to develop into a sub/tropical cyclone, which is another reason why it belongs in the other systems section. If the NHC classifies the system post-season, it will be added to the regular storms section accordingly, but until then, it will remain in the other storms section. Gumballs678 talk 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For non-ptc invests, what are their notability requirements? It may be useful as I think we were talking about it last year. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what their notability requirements are, I think it varies. Take 2016 for example, Meteo France monitored a potential cyclone in mid-September in the Bay of Biscay that they claimed was subtropical, but NOAA argued it was extratropical because it still had an occluded front attached to it. I would have to do more research to find out what the specifics are, unless someone else knows. Gumballs678 talk 14:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Was that even an invest though or just Meteo-France wanting to be a cool kid? I'll check some of the NHC's archives to see if its listed as anything. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not listed on the TWO for September 15th. But it could be because it is out of the NHC's monitoring area. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd imagine that for an invest to have notability, it would have to be for either impacts, or because it received significant coverage/attention from multiple different sources, especially those that are notable themselves. If we go by that logic, this storm would be notable, since several high profile meteorologists commented on the storm. That being said, most who commented on it were stating that they thought it was tropical, which is fine since it is their opinion, however the NHC themselves did not classify the storm as such, which is something to be wary of when including the storm in the article. Things could change in the future, in the sense that the storm becomes formally classified, but for the moment it is not and it is too early to tell for sure what the outcome will be. With that in mind, I think it is still noteworthy enough to be kept in the special section. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't this be deleted/a redirect

so on Talk:2022 Atlantic hurricane season they said the page shouldnt be created until a season prediction is made. There are no season predictions, so by that logic, shouldn't you guys delete the page??? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you it's a little premature to put this article on the mainspace the TSR forecasts haven't even been released yet which usually that when we put it on the mainspace, and frankly personally I think we should at least wait until April since that's when most of the forecasts get released, unless the Atlantic pulls a 2016 next year and a have storm in January which is unlikely, this also goes for the Eastern Pacific we should wait until April when most of the forecast come out. I understand the North Indian Ocean and Western Pacific having articles now since those seasons run year-round and we are less than a month away from 2023. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @Drdpw and @Mitch199811 to see their opinions on this. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In hindsight I may have played into the hands of a vandal or sock. Probably should have just restored the redirect, but saw now harm simply doing page triage. I have no objection to restoring the redirect until spring. On a side note, the AHS talk page discussion alluded to above was about creating a 2028 season redirect. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it is a bit premature currently, but it doesn't seem like there would be too much harm in having it a few days early as long as it doesn't violate wp:crystalball. I would like to mention 2022 was my first year editing Wikipedia's tropical cyclone pages and I didn't really get involved till Gaston-Gavin disputes. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The only information we have for 2023 is the name list. Since the entirety of that information is listed at Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic Ocean, there is no reason for this page to be anything other than a redirect until the TSR forecast comes out. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

this topic is too outdated now Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Initial season activity projections have been incorporated into the article along with information about the January quasi-subtropical system. Drdpw (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

When are we putting the archive bot on this page, like are we gonna wait for May or? ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I copied source code from 2022's talk. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

hurricane category colors

the colors for the hurricane category changed back to the old one? Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC for further information. Drdpw (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Notes section

Do we need a notes section currently as there are no notes? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not at this time; I have hidden the text. Drdpw (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

01L dates/intensity

I've removed the dates and peak winds/pressure for 01L as there's been no other information (publicly stated or otherwise) from the NHC regarding that. Even using ATCF will be running afoul of WP:OR here since it doesn't state when 01L was subtropical, and any analysis of such would be personal opinion. I know CSU's monitoring page has listed January 15–17 and 55 kt/982 mb but their source links to nowhere and makes me suspect it's just based off the original trackfile which again doesn't state when exactly it was subtropical. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I got the pressure from the NOAA's archive. Assuming I got the right cyclone, it said it was down to 984 millibars. Wind speeds are from the Fox News source. Not sure what to do about the timing. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Fox News source states gusts, not 1-minute sustained winds... and I'd rather not link to a single weather map and make claims regarding meteorological history given there was just a big RfC over the use of maps as sources with a very wide range of opinions over what counts as "interpreting" a map (and consequently what would be considered original research). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The number was there and looking at the OR part of the dispute, it looks like it is accepted as not being OR. Maybe leave wind speeds out until a TCR or other official source comes out. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that the using the weather map beyond stating that the pressure was 984 mb at 7:00 a.m. EST on January 16, 2023 – for example, claiming that 984 mb was the minimum pressure (which FWIW is contradicted by the NHC rolling best track for 90L which I linked above) – is reaching a conclusion not directly and explicitly stated by the map. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about that and I probably shouldn't have put it in the article. Other than the issue of the website not stating that it was subtropical, are there any other issues? I'm sure for now we could just leave out the timeline if we don't have that data. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The TCR would clear everything up... no harm saying we don't know what NHC thinks until then. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the peak winds and pressure information returned, I removed it from the infobox since gusts are not sustained winds. I wish the link provided by CSU would be fixed. I have to remove pressure information since leaving it on would cause an error. INeedSupport ^:3 00:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also hidden the timeline for now since we don't have a specific date range to indicate on it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Season Effects of the Subtropical Storm

Should the season effects mention Newfoundland under Atlantic Canada. The storm did go over it and warnings were issued. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought is to go with "Atlantic Canada". Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also agree with the suggestion. Kayree kh (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Damages and fatalities

Should the table in the season affects be changed so that the damages and deaths from the storm should be unknown since it made landfall and probably had some affect but no news source or TCR has been published yet? Thanks, Kayree kh (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't say something is unknown if there isn't any evidence for it being unknown. For now, there has been no deaths or damages reported from SS One so it should stay as "none" unless there is evidence that the amount of deaths or damage toll is actually unknown or a certain number. Infinity (talk - contributions) 16:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That is correct, based on news accounts at the time there were no reports of storm damage and no storm related deaths. Drdpw (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongest storm

What happens to the strongest storm when a hypothetical tropical storm Arlene forms? Will it be blank until a hurricane forms or be replaced by Arlene no matter what. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced by Arlene since it will have a definitive pressure, unlike the subtropical storm. Thank you for looking out on this issue in advance. Kayree kh (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds most appropriate to me. Drdpw (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Lets just wait and see what the NHC says since we are just talking hypotheticals and the subtropical storm might be the strongest system.Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick question about the Mid-January subtropical storm

Good afternoon my fellow Wikipedians. I have a quick question about the subtropical storm that formed in January. Shouldn't it be called "Subtropical Storm One" in the systems section instead of "January subtropical storm" since it was given the ID "AL012023"? Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind I took a look at the 2013 Atlantic hurricane seasons' page and Subtropical Storm Fifteen is also called "Unnamed Subtropical Storm" under the systems section so I'm going to retract my question. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the section would be better titled as “January subtropical storm”. The fact it was unnamed wasn’t as important as it being in January, IMO. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The trend is that we say it is unnamed like in 2005. That subtropical system also has a common name of the Azores subtropical storm. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the numbers are given out like that; once the storm is dead its dead. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Per [1], it seems that they are classifying it as SS One. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 That is why originally I thought we should use "Subtropical Storm One" in the systems section because the NHC is referring to it as "SS One" due to the ID being "AL012023" on their statement, then I thought about it, and since then have retracted my question because for consistency here on Wikipedia now I'm supporting "Unnamed Subtropical Storm" because as you mentioned on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane page, we are using "Unnamed Subtropical Storm" for the Azores storm also in the 2011 Atlantic hurricane page for Tropical Storm Thirteen we are using "Unnamed Tropical Storm" these systems were added into the database later during the post-analysis. It would be a different case if the storm were already a tropical depression (already in the database), then the NHC turned around and upgraded it to a tropical storm in the post-analysis like Tropical Storm Seven-E of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season. That storm was already in the database though not named, so it was warranted to change it from "Tropical Depression Seven-E" to "Tropical Storm Seven-E." Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonetracker7586 The most complicated thing is that they decided this before the season started, do we have any records of that? Right now, to be on the safe side until consensus is reached for using SS One, I would call it unnamed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should. As NHC has give it the code AL012023, in abbreviation 01L. The next depression will be named as TD Two, in code AL022023.

As it is currently give the code One, it should be Subtropical Storm One. I edited it before but someone reverted it. LuminousSword (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

One Vs. Unnamed

I cannot find anyone that uses Subtropical Storm One and even professional news stations seem confused [2]. I can also see the other side, but I find it a lot less secure as the NHC never called the storm One, just saying the next one would be Two. As far as I can tell, this is also an unique occurrence; the NHC has never changed the designation of something before the season has even began. I want consensus from us as for what the storm should be called on Wikipedia. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) UTC)

Unless / Until the NHC designates it otherwise we should label the system "Unnamed subtropical storm" as suggested above. Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that this approach is probably the best solution at this time. Kayree kh (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

NHC designated it as AL012023. The next depression will be called as Tropical Depression Two/02L LuminousSword (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

My issue with that is that it seems pretty close to violating WP:OR. No one that I have seen, besides Wikipedia, has used Subtropical Storm One. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

NHC gave it the designation 01L, so according to TD 10 & 11, it should be one. Since there’s no any hurricanes or storms after 90L, it is given the code 01L. In the references to those unnamed TDs, shouldn’t we give it the name SS One? LuminousSword (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That is what we are debating here. Also, those two last year were designated while they were active. Also we are not to give out the name, even if it is logical, as that violates OR. If a reliable source calls it SS One, or there is a precedent to it, then I would be glad to change my mind as that is the correct option. But right now, no one calls it one and just sticks to "unnamed". ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s better to wait for the NHC 2033 Hurricane Season Report. It would tell us whether to call it unnamed or One. LuminousSword (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Per 2020 Pacific Hurricane Season with tropical storm Seven-E, there is a possibility is that it should be called Subtropical Storm One. The only problem with that designation in my opinion is that it would probably go against the name on the TCR. Kayree kh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Seven-E at least had a designation before it was updated, this storm didn't. I don't know how much tradition will matter because it isn't a simple upgrading and it isn't coming from the post-season analysis. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This time NHC gave it a designation, AL012023, could be shorten as 01L LuminousSword (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think we should just keep it as Unnamed Subtropical Storm like how we did with the 2005 Azores storm, Tropical Storm Thirteen (2011), and the December 2013 Subtropical Storm on the 2005, 2011, and 2013 Atlantic hurricane seasons pages respectively to keep things consistent. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is, those storms are not given any code, for example 30L, thus they are called “Unnamed”. However, in this scenario, The storm is given the code One, thus it should be one instead of “Unnamed”. LuminousSword (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Does the designation automatically mean it has that number? Are there any previous scenarios that the storm was designated like this? ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: Perhaps the closest and most similar scenario I could find was Subtropical Storm One of the 1992 season, which was also the first storm of the season, and was specifically named "One" by the NHC. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well back then the NHC does not name subtropical cyclones, but instead give them numbers. That subtropical storm was given advisories in real-time instead of being designated post-analysis. INeedSupport ^:3 02:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

2 things:

1. Was SS One 1992 known to be a SS before a post analysis?
2. Before 2001, SSs had a few different methods of naming, such as numbers in this instance.

✶Mitch199811✶ 02:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure if #1 was suppose to be a question, but if it is then yes. advisory discussion on STS One INeedSupport ^:3 03:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I expect this is the first time and that’s why we are discussing to make the decision. LuminousSword (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@LuminousSword: If you look at the TCR of the 2011 unnamed tropical storm, you will see that the NHC did designate it as AL202011, so technically it's called Tropical Storm 20. However, the official name of the tropical storm was "Unnamed Tropical Storm". Similarly, if you look at the TCR of the 2013 subtropical cyclone, you will see that it has been given a designation AL152013, or Subtropical Storm 15. However, the NHC calls this storm "Unnamed Subtropical Storm". INeedSupport ^:3 02:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s why I said we gotta wait until the NHC reveals the report about the storm’s name. We have to keep the current name at the moment. LuminousSword (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the name should be kept as "Unnamed subtropical storm" as a result. INeedSupport ^:3 02:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The storm is classified as AL01, however, because it was unnamed, it should remain "Unnamed subtropical storm", see "Unnamed" in 2013, which was classified as 14L post-operationally, but never received a name. Operationally, it is AL01, but as it was not classified operationally, it remains "unnamed", which is what I've found to be the NHC policy. They've never given names to storms they've classified post-operationally. Gumballs678 talk 20:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we go on a mini crusade changing stuff from SS 1 to Unnamed or the code that was given to it? ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Those that are classified as Subtropical Storm One were classified as subtropical storms when they formed, not after post-analysis. Subtropical storms that form before 2002 were given numbers or phonetic alphabets instead of names. They do not need to be changed. INeedSupport ^:3 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant some files and articles call this storm SS One like List of unnamed tropical cyclones (which always uses numbers for some reason) and the track and satellite image. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Arlene dead yet??

The words in the article say Arlene is still active, but the infobox on Arlene is set up as if the tropical storm has finally come to an end. Can anyone fix this?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center just issued the last advisory on Arlene, so it is a remnant low right now before its dissipation hours later closer to the coast of Western Cuba. It is likely dissipated while it still shows on the National Hurricane Center website as Post-Tropical Cyclone ARLENE, and it's only showing a few hours before it disappears on the website, and then we can conclude that Arlene has dissipated. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 21:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Confused wording after TD 2 formation

I have something to say. Since Tropical Depression Two formed on June 1, exactly a day the hurricane season began, I added those words "marking the first tropical cyclone formed exactly at the start of the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season." Why these words were confusing and was removed? I believe Tropical Depression Two (later Tropical Storm Arlene) is the first tropical cyclone (instead of second) of this year in an Atlantic basin if an unnamed subtropical storm in January does not count as a tropical cyclone but a subtropical cyclone, and it formed exactly on the day the hurricane season began. Should I add those words back, add with some different wording (marking the first tropical cyclone formed exactly on the day the hurricane season began), or don't add those words back? Just to clarify. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 20:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally, such storm distinctions are not included in the individual storm subsections, but are included in the Season summary section. which describes the season system by system, and will evolve as the season blows on. At the present time, it has one paragraph: Officially, the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season began on June 1 and will end on November 30. A total of 2 systems have developed, an unnamed subtropical storm, in the Atlantic north of Bermuda in mid-January, and Tropical Storm Arlene, in the Gulf of Mexico near Florida on the season's opening day. How does that work for you? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That paragraph on "Seasonal summary" section will work for me and us summarizing storm formations so far. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 01:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Unnamed Subtropical Storm's duration

Why is it just described as "MId-January"? Looking at it's meteorological history, it has lasted from January 16 through Jan. 17. Mobius Gerig (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That's because NHC hasn't said when exactly they thought 01L was subtropical and not extratropical; for all we know it could be anywhere between as little as 6 hours on January 16/17 or the full duration of those 2 days. Until they release the TCR we won't know anything for sure and it's best to not think that we do. I brought it up in Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1#01L dates/intensity (and this is why I don't like the archive bot set to just 7 days). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that discussion was almost a month ago. And even with weekly clearing, this page can get pretty big during peak season. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I increased minimum threads to 4 which should keep some around longer, especially when discussions are rarer. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Colorado State University, presumably using data from the NHC, is stating that it lasted 1/15-1/17, attained winds of 55 kts, and deepened to a pressure of 982 mbars.[3] Drdpw (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

CSU also says that Arlene started the 2nd so they might be using a different counting system than us or might be doing some shenanigans with timezones. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

They are tracking ACE and storm dates indicate when a system is at least tropical storm intensity. Drdpw (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw they're using the NRL trackfile as a temporary reference, according to page 2 of their pre-reason forecast. Unfortunately these trackfiles doesn't mention whether something was tropical/subtropical/extratropical/only a disturbance/low-pressure area etc., as you can see with Arlene's. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Strongest storm

Twice now I have undone an attempt to put Arlene as the strongest storm of the season. @HurricaneDeci and Modokai: The strongest storm is simply undefined until we have a TCR for the subtropical storm; it is particularly problematic that you put Arlene as the "strongest" storm when the unnamed subtropical storm was almost certainly stronger. Without an official intensity for the subtropical storm, it is simply meaningless to ask for the "strongest storm of the season" as it is simply not possible to compare the intensities of the two storms until then. This is highly misleading, not supported by sources, and simply not necessary. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the sourcing to support having Arlene as the strongest storm. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw and @Kayree kh said that the most logical solution was to replace it with Arlene last time we discussed it. I think the note was enough to show this complexity. My question is if hypothetical high-end TS Bret or low-end C1 Cindy would replace Unnamed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My opinion shifted given that Arlene ended up being most probably being weaker than Unnamed was. Regarding your question: “yes”. Drdpw (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw and Mitch199811: My answer would be “no”; we cannot make that conclusion in that case either because that would be putting words in NHC’s mouth, especially as SMAP passes show the unnamed storm was at or near hurricane strength. The fact that we rank by pressure also means that we cannot even use the fact that NHC does not give subtropical storms more then 60 knots.—Jasper Deng (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we have to make some cut off where we just assume Unnamed will not be the most intense. No sense in saying "Wilma V2: Downed Power Line Boogaloo" might be slightly weaker than Unnamed just because its TCR doesn't come out till October. I would say that if a hurricane is a category 2, it should be assumed that it is the most intense. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that any cutoff we set is WP:OR. Normally the strongest storm is a WP:CALC thing but the calculation breaks down with an undefined variable. See how NaN gets handled in floating point arithmetic. Because a NaN is not greater than or less than or even equal to any defined value, there does not exist a member of the set that is greater than the others. Wikipedia is not in a hurry and this is going to be a temporary issue.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I still think that once we get our first C2 or C3, we should input them as the largest storm and just leave a note saying the Unnamed's intensity is unknown. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

When reliable sources start referring to a storm (Hurricane) as "the strongest of the season" Wikipedia should as well. Drdpw (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: I’m aware you think so, but simply repeating it does not address my argument, nor does it help achieve consensus.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I'd put Arlene, simply because we have concrete numbers for it, whereas we don't for the unnamed storm. Hypothetically, if no other systems formed this season and the former was found to be more powerful upon post-season analysis, we could then replace Arlene, under the premise that technically this could happen for any storm upon post-season analysis. For example, we could have the next system be classified a hurricane and subsequently be downgraded to a TS post-season, which could then also cause our first system to be the strongest. Case in point, we have verified data on Arlene's strength, which I'd say should stand above "unknown". DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarkSide830: NaN, aka unknown, is neither greater than, equal to, or less than any value. Saying unknown is less than—or greater than, for that matter—any fixed number like Arlene’s intensity is nonsense and not supported by sources. We need to obey Wikipedia’s policy on original research and not do it ourselves. The subtle difference from regular post analysis is we aren’t dealing with unknown numbers even as they’re provisional. Making a preliminary statement of a value is not the same as making one of an unknown value.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

While I am ok with your treatment of Arlene, what do you mean by its numbers are nonsense when they are supported by the NHC and are the only solid numbers we have? ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: Don’t put words in my mouth; re-read my sentence. That’s not at all what I’m saying. What NHC has said isn’t nonsense. The statement “998 mb is less than <unknown value>” is what’s nonsense.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and sorry for the confusion.

Didn't we have some non-unknown numbers from the army or something. Why did we declare that they were unreliable? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you’re talking about the NRLMRY track, there are two problems with it: it’s not the NHC’s official word, and in this case there’s no indication of which points are extratropical, so we’re unable to assume any particular point represents the peak. Remember that only the RSMC’s official word counts here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand how NaN works, but we should do what we can with the data we have. Throw a note after Arlene if you wish to acknowledge the uncertainty. I don't think it's a OR violation to acknowledge that we only have solid data for one of two data points and to communicate this as such. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that mention Arlene being the strongest storm of the 2023 season? At this point in time there are none. Therefore, it would be OR to state that Arlene was stronger than the unnamed SS. Until we have the first hurricane, at which time reliable sources will likely label it "strongest of the season", or a TCR is issued on the SS, the strongest storm is undetermined. Drdpw (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarkSide830: We already are doing what we can with the data we have. Misleadingly saying Arlene is the strongest storm is not one of those things we can do with the data we have, plain and simple, because of what Drdpw and myself have said.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Total amount of "Named storms" in forecast table

Okay, so we have a situation here similar to the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season where the first storm was an un-named tropical storm. In my view this would mean the "Seasonal forecasts" table would only count the 1 "Named storm" we have so far.

@Drdpw: chaned the wording from "named' to "Nameable" here: [4] which in my view would potentially effect every Hurricane season article we have.

This begs the question... should we include Subtropical storms that are unnamed in the "Seasonal forecasts" table totals? Do the sources provided in the seasonal forecast only predict "named storms"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season's article included their unnamed storm in the numbers. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: The wording in the source given is careful not to include "named" when describing the total amount of storms.[5] The issue isn't how many storms there were, its how many have names. NOAA cites in their report for Zeta "Zeta was the 27th and final named storm in the Atlantic during 2005, establishing the record for the most named storms in one year in that basin" [6]. So claiming there was 28 is misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are 3 reliable sources stating that there were 28 named storms in 2005: a 2015 USA Today article, a 2020 NOAA article, and a 2020 Smithsonian article. Thus, we can, based on reliable secondary sources, report that there were 28 named storms in the 2005 AHS.Drdpw (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That TCR you cited came before they designated the Azores storm as subtropical. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

... should we include Subtropical storms that are unnamed in the "Seasonal forecasts" table totals?
Yes, because unnamed storms—storms not named operationally, but designated as subtropical or tropical after the fact—are included as if they had been named operationally for seasonal statistical purposes and analysis. Drdpw (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the average reader is going to know that and recommend adding a note for clarification. When someone sees "Unnamed x" then the logical thing would assume it is an unnamed storm that wouldn't count towards a seasonal total of named systems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

While I am a wikipedia editor now, I didn't necessarily assume that a few years ago. I took it to mean TS strength or up like it is trying to say. I do think that no matter what though, the unnamed storms should be counted the same as named. My solution is simply to put it as nameable. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The forecast tables all mention "storm", meaning any (sub)tropical cyclone with winds of above 39 mph, as defined by NOAA, fits that criteria. If it's not a (sub)tropical "storm", it still adds to the overall numbers as a (sub)tropical depression. For example, a season could end 21-20,8-3. 21 (sub)tropical cyclones formed, 20 of them reached (sub)tropical storm status, 8 those were hurricanes, and three were major hurricanes. Subtropical storms have always counted towards a season's total number of storms, even if they weren't named--they didn't receive official names until after 2002. We include them because NOAA also includes them. Gumballs678 talk 19:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

PSU to UPenn

Why was PSU changed to UPenn? No other season in the past few years call it UPenn, only PSU. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the annual forecast from Penn State's ESSC has been cited in previous seasons, but this year, a forecast from U of Penn's Mann Research Group has been cited. These are two separate universities. When the forecast was initially posted this year, the editor might have presumed that they were posting something from PSU, but in actuality they were not. Drdpw (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing them when I added the citation. I assumed they were the same since a lot of it matched up like Pennsylvania, Mr. Mann, and the style of forecasting. Has PSU dropped out of forecasting then? ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering what makes either PSU or UPenn notable enough to be included in the article. After all we can not include every single seasonal forecast in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I took a look and it appears that Penn State has not as of yet issued a 2023 forecast. Drdpw (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PSU seems at least like a seminotable university that has some level of experience. It has quite a few years of predicting hurricanes and, according to the Wikipedia article's infobox, has a relationship to UCAR. I have no clue what the ESSC is though. ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to support addition of PSU over UPenn. While PSU is not the most well-known school in the country, and not as well-known as UPenn, they have an established and well-regarded meteorology program whereas Penn does not. Not to say I'd doubt the experts at Penn, but PSU should know it's stuff. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

DarkSide830, The PSU Earth System Science Center has not issued a 2023 AHS forecast. As to whether the UPenn 2023 AHS Forecast is notable enough to be included in the article, I have no idea. Drdpw (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know they have not issued one. My point is if we are to include the UPenn forecast, then I believe it would follow logically to also post a similar forecast by PSU. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my original comment we can not include every single seasonal forecast in the article, which begs the question what makes a seasonal forecast noteworthy to be included in the article? @DarkSide830: you are suggesting that we should include PSU, because they are known in the US for having a meteorological programme. That personally does not sit well with me since according to this website i found, there are at least 24 colleges with meteorological programmes all off which each could do a seasonal forecast.Jason Rees (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What do the other forecasts have that separate them from the 24 colleges? NOAA should be obvious; UKMO is another meteorological agency, although less obvious than NOAA. UA, CSU, and NCSU are all colleges, but I have seen CSU mentioned out of Wikipedia. The Weather Channel is probably the most notable weather-focused news agency but has met some controversies. Before I searched them up, I have never seen Tropical Storm Risk but they do have plenty of sources mentioning them.

If we are questioning PSU and UPenn, I would also like to question UA and NCSU. Also, do any other meteorological agencies, of countries like Mexico and the Bahamas, do these predictions? ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added the Servicio Meteorológico Nacional forecast to the article. Drdpw (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the numbers for the major and normal hurricanes should be added together with the way the SMN formats it (so 3-7). ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Point is if we keep UPenn listed then PSU should also be, but perhaps the question should be more about whether or not the UPenn listing should remain. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A mid-season forecast from PSU ought to be included, as their forecasts have been included in past seasons. (We do not have an objective standard for what makes a seasonal forecast noteworthy to be included in the article.) As for UPenn, according one source, the team there "has been making Atlantic hurricane season forecasts since 2007, and these predictions have done well in 11 of 15 seasons." We should not exclude UPenn or any group/team/agency arbitrarily. Drdpw (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we also check out the other 24 universities that Jason Rees mentioned to see if they have any hurricane predictions? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I found predictions from:

• Missouri University [7]
• NCSU, already in the article

I couldn't find predictions from:

• Iowa State University, they did have a discussion with a professor though. I did not look through it all but I only saw percentages.
• Purdue University
• Embry-Riddle University
• Cornell University
• University of Maryland
• Rutgers
• University of Michigan
• Florida State, I did find something from 2014.
• Texas A&M
• University of Albany
• Millersville University, they do winter predictions for you guys who work over there.
• Both California's
• University of North Carolina, NCSU came up
• University of Oklahoma
• University of Washington
• Ohio State University
• University of Colorado Boulder, might be buried under CSU
• Wisconsin-Madison
• Penn State, topic of this thread
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Virginia Tech

You have to really check who the information is coming from because they will often link to others, most often CSU or NOAA. I might have missed something. I also might have screwed up in searching. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I did the same process with the rest of the Ivy League and nothing turned up. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Images for current systems

Where do we get our images for current systems (and not just three)? I have found an image from NASA but comes from a copyrighted cite and has a watermark. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Satellite images and forecasts are uploaded and updated by Cewbot. The bot was down earlier, but is now functioning normally. The article now uses the images uploaded by Cewbot. AtlanticHurr (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Tropical Storm 93L

Should we add Tropical Storm 93L, located near Tropical Storm Bret that is currently moving towards the U.S.71.15.152.148 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We wait until either it becomes Tropical Depression Four or watches are issued on it as Potential Tropical Cyclone Four. Drdpw (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To add more depth to that explanation, only systems that are tracked operationally with advisories, discussions, etc. have current infoboxes and are then added. Kayree kh (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's now "Tropical Depression 93L 2023" and it is reported to just become a Tropical Storm then deteriorate 71.15.152.148 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, because it has become a tropical depression, it is now referred to as Tropical Depression Four. As soon as a system becomes a (sub)tropical system, it gets a number and loses its invest designation and is then on referred to by its number or name if it exceeds 35 knot winds. Kayree kh (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning invest designation

Since 2017, we have never mentioned invest numbers as far as I can tell. We only stated that a tropical wave^{1, 2} or a disturbance^{1, 2} had formed. Why are we now mentioning them? ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: I'm pretty sure those designations get removed after TCRs come out. During the season though Invest numbers have always been mentioned. ~ HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked through older versions of 2022, 2021, and 2020 in the late season (November-October) and still none of them mentioned invest numbers. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Invest designations have never been mentioned before this season. The only thing that has changed is that now TWOs include them parenthetically once applied to a disturbance by NHC. I'm not sure that getting an invest designation is worth noting in a storm summary, as it says little about a system's potential for tropical development, and we already know (or it is likely already stated) that NHC is monitoring the disturbance for possible development. Drdpw (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 and Drdpw: The Invest designation is useful since it means that the NHC thinks the disturbance is worth sending recon to. Just saying "a tropical wave" or "a disturbance" doesn't convey that information. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 17:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily objecting you, but should we go back and change the past 5 seasons and retroactively update them? We do have the invest numbers for them. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not so HikingHurricane, an invest number is simply a temporary identifier for a specific area of disturbed weather while it is being monitored for potential tropical cyclone development by the NHC. That the NHC is monitoring a tropical wave or a disturbance for potential development can and long-has been done without noting invest numbers. Also, an invest designation does not correspond to any particular likelihood of development or to any prioritization or worthiness of having HH aircraft sent in. Drdpw (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: If you read this article from a reliable secondary source, it mentions that the Invest designation is also given when recon is scheduled to investigate the disturbance. In any case, the designation conveys more information than just "a tropical wave" or "a disturbance." ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 18:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, a simple, reusable invest designation in and of itself does not provide readers with any additional information. Nowhere in the article is the noteworthiness of meaning of an invest designation established. Drdpw (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw:I just told you the additional information an Invest designation carries with it, twice. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 00:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s technical jargon that the average reader doesn’t need in order to understand what’s going on. Keep it simple. Noah^Talk 01:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I still feel that it's important to mention the point at which the NHC decided a disturbance was worth sending recon to, and there isn't really another way to do that. The Invest numbers also come directly from TWOs, where we get most of the other information about a disturbance from anyway, at least until the TCR is released. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 02:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be harmful to mention invest numbers but I would like consistency between the seasons. I'm probably more on the side of no invest numbers though as they can be reused. Also, I feel like very few people care about what invest number a storm was designated before it matured. We can show that the NHC did start monitering it at a certain time with the old system as well. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: If consistency is the issue, the best temporary solution is probably to remove the Invest numbers for now. If necessary we can have a bigger discussion later and go off the consensus of that. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose invest numbers being mentioned either in the Atlantic or Worldwide without a bigger discussion as there is nothing significant about an invest number being assigned to a system. I would also note that recon can be assigned to or sent to an underassigned area of interest.Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the invest numbers from the article, and would suggest that this issue be raised on the project talk page. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy on tropical systems that redevelop after they have dissipated?

How would Wikipedia treat a cyclone that redevelops, for example if the surface trough of Cindy redevelops, will it be Tropical Depression 5/Storm Don? I am curious since if something like this would happen, how would the article address it? As the same system or separate? 46.163.2.219 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide that, the NHC does. If you do your research, the precedent is for a system to keep its old name if it redevelops. That's why Cindy's ATCF file is still being updated even after it has degenerated. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For an example of how the article would address this, see 2021 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Fred (the most recent to do this). Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Strength of Unnamed subtropical storm

I notice that CSU includes the January unnamed storm's peak wind and dates active. They have these numbers on their real time tc statistics. http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?loc=northatlantic Tajjc (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We aren't using those numbers because we still have little confirmation when precisely Unnamed was subtropical. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Note, the TCR has been released. Drdpw (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Total Number of Named Storms

Why is Unnamed subtropical storm included in the number of "Named Storms" column in the "Predictions of tropical activity in the 2023 season" table? This is mostly a curiosity question possibly better labelled as why didn't it get a name? Autkm (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The unnamed subtropical storm is still included in all the storm totals for the season because it is still a (sub)tropical cyclone that reached gale force, meeting the requirements for a (sub)tropical storm, otherwise as a "named" storm. It didn't receive a name because it was found to be a subtropical storm after it had already developed, or post-operationally. I hope this helps clear that curiosity a little! :) Gumballs678 talk 14:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Don's image

Why is the current image a gif and not a normal image? ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because until about 15 minutes ago, no one had uploaded an image of Don to the commons. Someone did 15 minutes ago, so I just replaced it with an image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Cewbot focusing on gifs? Last time I checked on their uploads, it was almost entirely gifs for satellite images. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Unnamed Subtropical Storm

If the subtropical storm in January was undiscovered to be a hurricane, and was found to be after the season, would it receive a separate name? Or would it remain unnamed Insendieum (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It would remain unnamed by the NHC.Drdpw (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

And on top of that, the TCR for Unnamed is out, so don't expect any additional changes to its intensity or status. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I would like to know how many comments is too many because I am this close to putting comments everywhere the Unnamed SS is mentioned. Also, would capitalizing comments violate wp:CAPSLOCK? ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

More hidden comments will not be effective. The confusion and back-N-forth infobox editing will continue until the infobox is reformatted to allow for cases where the most intense storm of a given season, as measured by lowest pressure, is a different one than the strongest storm of a given season, as measured by highest wind speed. For example, official and secondary sources refer to Ian as the strongest hurricane of 2022, because of its higher wind speed, even though Fiona was the most intense due to its lower bottom barometric pressure. The infobox however, lists Fiona as the strongest storm of 2022 because of its lower pressure, which is intensity not strength as commonly understood and used in conversation. There was a lengthy discussion on this subject last season, and its OP (as suggested by others) brought it up at Talk:Project Tropical cyclones. Perhaps the proposed solution ought to be reexamined. Drdpw (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also like the option to include both the strongest by winds, as well as most intense by pressure, as there are many seasons where they are different, including 2008, 2017, and last year. I don’t think having the notice suffices, and since I’ve seen so much confusion and words written about it, I would rather have both as options. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly feel like this is way better than our current method. If I am understanding it correctly, the addition of a note was useful to clarify some things and an improvement, but from what this (and last) season has shown, not enough people read notes and comments. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, not enough people read hidden notes and comments; but the issue you raise in this case illuminates on a broader issue: Both of statements made in the infobox note about why X is the strongest storm of the season rather than Y are inaccurate. The NHC and the WMO, along with various meteorological agencies around the world determine tropical cyclone strength by wind speed. And more broadly, in media and common conversation, wind speed equate with strength, rather than barometric pressure. So, given the confusion and controversy generated across several articles by our practice of determining tropical cyclone strength by central pressure, we should probably modify the infobox. Drdpw (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at WT:WPTC. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don

Do any of you think Hurricane Don has any notability of having its own page? Although it didn't affect land, it was pretty long living despite forecasts. Insendieum (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Not I, under the circumstances – no life or property impact, no meteorological records set, no in-depth media coverage. It simply does not have sufficient notability to warrant creation of a stand-alone article. Its full story can be well told in this article. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

To support Drdpw, you might want to look at Martin from last year. It was a ginormous storm and in a pretty odd location but it still doesnt have an article. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You can try making a draft that passes the requirements. I think that it and Bret are the two that probably would get articles. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No. All it did can be summarized in the section it is in. ChessEric 17:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Franklin?

I checked the NHC map and TS Franklin hasn’t formed yet is there confirmed proof Franklin has formed or just a Tropical Depression ( TD Eight ) 2601:88:8102:FA70:DA6:78BE:670:5A62 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It says they will issue advisories for it at 5:00 PM EST. 2605:8D80:62E:95D2:9888:3750:4C44:8BE9 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you 2601:88:8102:FA70:DA6:78BE:670:5A62 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Tropical storm formation record?

Three tropical cyclones have formed within a 24-hour period according to here: https://zoom.earth/maps/satellite/#view=18.6,-67.3,4.71z/date=2023-08-20,14:00,-4

Will this information be imparted into this article in the future? Has this happened before and is it relevant as a record? I cannot find any information on a record for the amount of systems forming in a cyclone basin basin in a 24-hour period. 2605:8D80:62E:95D2:9888:3750:4C44:8BE9 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

When the NHC stats that it a record and reliable secondary sources report this, it will be included; we should declare something as a record. Drdpw (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It's happened before, but not often. However, it's more arbitrary and doesn't really need to be included Gumballs678 talk 02:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Harold? Still Nine.

People keep making edits to Nine saying it is Harold. However, the NHC says that it is still a Tropical Depression, meaning it is still Nine. Logan (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023 (2)

According to the app "My Radar", Emily is still active, and Gert is active, not Harold. Can someone please fix this page? Please. 2600:6C48:427F:9122:2D70:D37E:AE71:3DED (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that MyRadar isn't used to track tropical cyclones, we update by the National Hurricane Center's advisories. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

About Harold.

Harold recently had its last advisory from the NHC at 4pm CDT and not much has been updated in regards to the storm in the article. Should the name be taken off of the active names and be changed to the original infobox format? Animem 1 (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Animem 1: The NHC delegated advisory responsibility to the Weather Prediction Center. Noah, AA^Talk 00:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was just going to make sure if any changes were needed to the article. Thanks! Animem 1 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Hi, I'd like to do an edit on Tropical Depression Nine, it actually caused some rain in Louisiana and I'd like to do an update on the "affected areas" in Tropical Depression Nine. ASRoma21 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 09L caused rainfall in southern Louisiana and New Orleans, not a fish storm. (not yet) ASRoma21 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No indication of appreciable rainfall in Louisiana from TD9. Drdpw (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is only a forecast, however, it does say rain is predicted in Florida. So, maybe we add Florida to areas affected? ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This source mentions .09 inches of rain at New Orleans, so it might be worth adding that the storm did cause a small amount of rain, while adding that it didn’t really help with drought conditions across the area. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Harold and Franklin articles

Is it time for us to start working on these two (especially since Harold is just about dead)? ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Harold didn’t do enough damage to warrant an article. Franklin might warrant one based on the damage it causes in Haiti. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be short but looking up TS Harold pulls up several articles from the likes of the Guardian, NYT, CBS, and CNN ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

franklin deserves an article anytime but lets see if we can pull up enough info for harold article so it can have a standalone article RainbowGalaxyPOC (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, for the sake of WP:DELAY, work on their sections in this page before rushing to create a standalone article. Typical policy dictates that an article should be created if all of the material therein can not be covered at a reasonable length within the season page. Harold shouldn't pass that bar, and while Franklin perhaps could, it's own section in the season page is not properly updates at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Franklin already caused a fatality, I think we can make an article. Harold probably not, unless the monsoon in Vegas was associated with it.216.250.210.89 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a draft here: Draft:Hurricane Franklin (2023). Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 19:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"Invest 93L" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Invest 93L has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Invest 93L until a consensus is reached. United States Man (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"Invest 93L (2023)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Invest 93L (2023) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Invest 93L (2023) until a consensus is reached. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Invest 93L

Note: Two new discussions on this topic were started. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Invets 93L is clearly notable for the article. It fits perfectly for the article. It is a tropical system, which has caused a state of emergency to be issued in Florida. It is more notable already than Cindy or Gert. High media attention as well. Clearly passes the basic qualifications for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on our past practices, as Invest 93L is neither a tropical cyclone nor a potential tropical cyclone, it does not get included in the systems section until it is, correct? Drdpw (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Invest 93L is a “tropical disturbance” (media reference as well to that). Based on the media attention, it would qualify for the list. “Based on our past practices” means nothing as I have discovered over the years. WikiProjects or previous discussions don’t automatically create precedents. They only can be used for references in discussions or debates down the road. I would say this is a time to “WP:IGNOREALLRULES”, if you wanted to be somewhat less technical about it, and allow it, given the clear notability of the system already. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

93L has no place in the article regardless of notability. This is nothing new. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 19:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, since y’all are against inclusion of it, I am going to concede. I am now against inclusion of the tropical system until it has caused impacts to people. If a state of emergency for 33 counties in Florida and high media attention isn’t notable enough for inclusion, then it shouldn’t be included at all until it has caused impacts to people. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If it becomes a tropical cyclone it will be included, as per guidelines and practice. If it becomes and remains a potential tropical cyclone it would most likely be included as an 'other system' like PTC 4 last year. 93L is not there yet. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Let’s just wait the day at most for presumably Idalia to form. If you are so eager, you could probably set up a comment with all the code for the section. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: No. The consensus is to not include it. Tropical depression/tropical storm status doesn’t just instantly give it notability. The Invest has high media attention & caused a state of emergency in Florida. The consensus was clear here that it isn’t notable for the article based on that, so just receiving a name doesn’t just instantly make it notable. Like I said, based on the consensus here, I am opposed to the inclusion of the system until impacts occur. Preparations/forecasts (which are mentions in the media right now), has a clear consensus here that that alone doesn’t give notability for a system. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, as Tropical Depression Ten it is included. This is in-line with consensus. Drdpw (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: You should look at Can all the WikiProject “Precedents” be on some page?. This is somewhat further proof that a list of these hidden “precedents” need to be added. You were strongly opposed to adding an Invest with high media attention and the cause for a state of emergency. Hours later, with 0 changes in the general forecast or impacts to humans, you are instantly in support of adding it, all because it was renamed/recategorized from a tropical disturbance to a tropical depression. Multiple times, you cited “consensus” for that, but never linked a “consensus” for that. Please consider helping make this general guideline page, because you sort of use precedents, without letting others (like myself) see/read them. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I’m dropping the thing. Leaving though, I do what to point out that this is some WikiProject precedent, which, per policy, shouldn’t have the authority to trump general notability guidelines for inclusion, but somehow is being used to do just that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was three hours since the issue was raised. Wikipedia's goal is not to be a news source and, in most instances, emphasizes a lack of deadline. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Like I explained earlier, it does not make any sense that the only different between the complete opposition from everyone and the complete inclusion support from everyone was it being recategorized from a tropical disturbance to a tropical depression. That is the sole difference between the opposition 3 hours ago and the support now. Nothing changed in the preparation for it nor did any new impacts happen. Even though Wikipedia has no deadlines and is not a news source, there shouldn’t be such a huge difference in 3 hours, when nothing but a recategorization/renaming took place. That’s all I’m saying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but this wasn't a constructive conversation nor a good use of editing time. United States Man (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Disturbances, regardless of how "notable" they may be, are never included in an Atlantic season article until they develop into a tropical cyclone, meeting the requirements of 30kts or higher. This was not a useful discussion, and rather a waste of time, as United States Man stated above me. We should not be arguing over whether to include a disturbance when the policy is to not include them. Gumballs678 talk 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Franklin Article

When can we get the Franklin article out it is literally a 150/926mbar so it is probably strong enough for an article 2607:FB91:2C10:E4D:89E2:5C7B:31FD:A282 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Franklin has a draft article. Drdpw (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that strength does not decide who doesnt get an article, notability does. ✶Mitch199811✶ 10:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023 (3)

It should be added in the Harold section that Padre island National seashore closed two beaches in preparation of the storm. https://www.mynbc5.com/amp/article/hurricane-season-harold/44873533 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s very clear. I’m saying to add information about the Padre island National seashore closing in the preparations, and gave a source above. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

When an impact (damage/casualty) paragraph is written that detail may well be included. It may be a little while before this happens however. Drdpw (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking back, it was routine beach closure, not notable in and of itself. Drdpw (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Image of the four storms?

Can someone upload an image of the four simultaneous TC’s? That seems like the type of image we would have in the season summary. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My one concern would be how weak they are, Gert and Twelve are depressions, Jose isnt much higher and Franklin has become a 1 or 2. Idalia is also there but it is a tropical storm. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have seen a 01/09 image with Idalia, Franklin, Jose, and Gert. Twelve is probably too far from the others to be captured with them. Drdpw (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Since Franklin has deteriorated, we would have an approximately 6 hour window to have all four in one image. It might be better to call it quits with Idalia, Franklin, Jose, and maybe Gert. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a GOES image of the four system together this morning. Supportstorm (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Supportstorm (talk · contribs), that's exactly what I had in mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to leave out twelve? ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think the four systems clustered so closely together is one of the most interesting events to have happened this year (so far). Good to have options though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Gert Shenanigan

@Drdpw changed the season effects to show two spans separated as a semi-colon due to the long span between its tropical states (and what even is the term for the period a cyclone is tropical). While I think it is a decent solution, it looks kind of informal(?) and not right but right now I do not have a much better solution besides reverting it. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning is that by not showing that Gert dissipated then regenerated the table misinforms readers as to how long-lived Gert was as a tropical cyclone; this gap is depicted in the graphical TL and noted the storm summary narrative. Drdpw (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Please don't unilaterally implement solutions without discussing first since this should in reality affect every storm that regenerates, not just cherry-picked ones. Noah, AA^Talk 16:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It should get cleaned up in the TCR. I can't remember exact examples, but I think we've had this issue before. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Gert

How is Gert again a tropical storm? Wasn't it already back in June or July? LoveHop123 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Gert degenerated into a remnant low on August 22; that low has now re-acquired tropical characteristics and once more meets the standards of a tropical cyclone. This happens every so often. Drdpw (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I never knew that could ever happen. I didn't know the low stayed around for that long. Thanks for the new information. LoveHop123 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this certainly feels like an exceptional case in gap of time between being a depression. Certainly interesting to see how the TCR treats this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Gert is out of alphabetical order on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.42.86 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not; see Frequently asked questions Question #3 above. Drdpw (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusing to the average reader, but if that is your system. 146.95.42.86 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Undeniably so. BTW, this is also the practice of the National Hurricane Center. Drdpw (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Map Color Wars

At this point I think this is going too far. Why can’t we just agree with the new colors and get along. And whoever keeps changing the colors just leave it alone cause I and other readers will get mad because of the confusion so just stop this has been going on for months please just decide on new colors already. I also like the new colors too. 2601:88:8102:FA70:F8B5:AB34:1C0F:66C7 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

We have already decided in favor of the new colors. @HikingHurricane: was wrongfully readding the old colors instead of making new-colored maps despite having the software to do so. They've been notified and agreed. There's no more color wars.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for solving the issue 2601:88:8102:FA70:F8B5:AB34:1C0F:66C7 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no color wars, but all of the tracks are old and not updated properly now. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Mistake.

Hi @Drdpw. I would like to thank you for correcting my mistake after I reverted someone incorrectly Insendieum (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Subtropical Storm 90L" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Subtropical Storm 90L has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 8 § Subtropical Storm 90L until a consensus is reached. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Map tracks disappearing

Where did all the map tracks of the storms go and also what’s with the fluctuations of old and new colors for the maps?2601:88:8102:FA70:F8B5:AB34:1C0F:66C7 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Map colours are current being updated to the new colour scheme. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Lee article - are we ready to start?

Hurricane Lee just got upgraded to category 5 and is very likely to be considered significant enough. Is there a draft for this hurricane so far? If not, are we ready to start? Charzoochee (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is one here. ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It has now been published foobarbaz 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Why are we publishing an article about a hurricane that has no impacts yet. Just another premature move to the mainspace. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know either, and I'm getting fed up with it. foobarbaz 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@DarkSide830 and FooBarBaz: If you think Lee isn't notable enough for an article, you are, of course, free to nominate the article for deletion via either PROD or AfD. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Meh, not a battle worth fighting at this point. It would probably get voted down and we probably wouodn't get a verdict by the time the storm was done anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Margot

Why did someone change the hurricane number from 5 back to 4? It’s been confirmed that hurricane Margot has formed… 172.84.241.203 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom? The next NHC advisory has not yet been published. Drdpw (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s a website but that’s probably to hard to navigate. But tropicaltidbits.con are confirming that it would be designated a hurricane by 5 pm. But I understand if you want to wait until the NHC updates their forecast. 172.84.241.203 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that the ATCF has been updated to show that Margot is a 65 knot Cat 1 hurricane, however, we do not update based on the ATCF as it isn't in the public eye and the forecasters can still change their minds before advisory time.21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The NHC advisory on Margot indicates that Margot has strengthened into a hurricane, but reminder that we update only when the NHC issues the latest advisory on a system. Tails Wx 01:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Timeline table

I see that, after the next system forms, the timeline table will need some adjusting. It appears to me that, due to the swarm of storms since mid-August, including one (possibly 2) zombie storm, all systems since mid-August and through the end of September will need to be grouped into one column on the graphical timeline to avoid crowding/over-lapping.

• Proposal:

Later, a new column can be started for late-season systems once the entries would be clear of Gert (and perhaps Franklin reincarnate). It looks like this years table will need to have unbalanced columns (primarily due to Gert's lifespan bifurcation, and maybe Franklin's). Thoughts, other ideas? Drdpw (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like if 14 and (more importantly) 15 had enough distance and Franklin doesn't redevelop, we should be good. If 14 forms within the next couple days Ill support this. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As currently aligned, 14 should be fine when it forms in the next few days; 15 however would need to form no earlier than about September 27 for it to remain clear of Gert. Drdpw (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Could we possibly just send 15 into the new column instead of reorganizating the whole thing? It might also help to add in 15 to the demonstration graph. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Provided TD15 does not form before about September 24. Drdpw (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

September 24 is quite far away. It would almost require another instance like August of last year. The only other solution I have is praying for Gert to be declared two systems and seeing where it goes from there. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Question/Proposal: Would this be better visually for the page?

It at least eliminates the scrunched look. United States Man (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We definitely need to avoid the scrunched look, anything to enhance the clarity and visual separation of columns. Drdpw (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really help the "too many storms at one time" issue, but at least it fills out the page. We could change it to something of these dimensions. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What happens with fifteen though? Assuming it forms by the tenth, Gert kinda screws us over. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The columns can be adjusted to make it work, such as Drdpw did above. My proposal was just to make the whole table wider. United States Man (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but even his assume fifteen will form in the later half of September. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, especially for those of us who like equal columns, Fifteen and every system that forms through late September really has to go into a column with Gert at the top (even if we maximize the table width). Let us all pray that Franklin does not rise again. Drdpw (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This could work? Or any combination of columns could be switched around to make the storms fit. United States Man (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What if we threw Arlene to the same row as Unnamed? ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Gert still gets in the way. Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been screwing around with it in my sandbox and it is truly an infuriating task to get it all to fit. I'll keep trying solutions and get back to you what I have set up. Though note that I have played with some fake scenarios. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is my solution:

Its still not too much better but it delays the issue till seventeen. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That could probably work in the meantime. I'd support going ahead with this version if Drdpw agrees. United States Man (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your version might also work decently or better than mine though it entirely depends on how much Uranus hates us and how long he drags out Lee and Margot. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your most recent version appears to work well for the near-term. Hopefully Jupiter will align with Mars. Drdpw (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ick, that purple is a wonderful reminder of this silly new color scheme. Personally, I think this solution isn't bad, though if we do get a gap here it would at least be worth revisiting down the line. Something about this solution just looks a little off, but that may just be because I'm used to the old proportions. Dang it Gert. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

My question is, what have we done in the past when an issue like this arises? I do like the new wider columns, makes it look cleaner. Can we look back at spacing for other storms where this has happened? It happened in both 2020 and 2021 with Paulette/Eta and Fred, respectively. Gumballs678 talk 23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not necessarily Gert reforming that is the issue, its how many long lasting storms have formed in such a short period. Looking back at 2005, 2020, and 2021, I'm not entirely sure if this issue has ever happened in the Atlantic at least. The only place I think we would encounter this is in the WPAC and the world articles. At least in the world articles, they both make it taller and wider. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

How is this special then? If so many storms formed in a short period, then is this season considered weird compared to other Atlantic seasons? Why not just acknowledge that this season is weird and strange? 2605:8D80:407:1013:6197:1B7B:1C58:3BEB (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Try to make your sentence more quantifiable unless "weird and strange" is used frequently by reliable sources.
2. It's not as simple at that, our issues come from a multitude of things like poor organization and Unnamed. We also didn't break any records, at least no notable ones. The only weird thing I can think of is that we had a really active late August and early September, which is mentioned. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

   How about unusual? Why not just wait and see how far the two current storms are dragged out. Making it taller and wider is the only way to prevent the overcrowding of the cluster of storms. 2605:8D80:407:1013:1C01:60CF:A2DA:5013 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like Gert reforming is the issue because that's what seems to have caused the proposed change, fueled by the quick succession of storms. Why don't we just try and balance them out the best we can right now? No matter what, Gert is going to impede. Gumballs678 talk 03:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That is what we have been attempting to do, and (hopefully) have done. With its current layout, we will only have a problem if Philippe forms before about September 22. Drdpw (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

One note: @MarioProtIV has readjusted the table to how it was in previous seasons. Seventeen would have to form late this month to not overlap Gert. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did that so you don’t have to scroll the image on mobile devices (especially on desktop view). If things arise just increase the length to add another storm in the column. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to offer my two-cents, I'm surprised there hasn't been a proposed solution of omitting February through May? Why must empty months take up the same amount of space as active months? Sure, it might not be consistent with the other 11- or 12-month Atlantic seasons, but it would reduce the wasted space that's condensing the months of highest activity. 2605:AD80:4F:9037:297E:F5E8:8824:535E (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

My issue would be the fact that it would be an odd jump in time that someone glossing over might miss. I also was not entirely sure if it was possible. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not possible. It's based upon the starting and ending periods. Noah, AA^Talk 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

TD 17

The timeline article reveals that TD 17 formed; but this article doesn't have a section about it. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You can start it, or, patiently wait until someone else does, your choice. Drdpw (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential tropical cyclone sixteen

If it does become a tropical cyclone, will an article be made about it? What happens if it doesn’t because this is scarily similar to Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten of 2017. Does it deserve an article if it happens? Who will work on it? Will it reach GA status? 2605:8D80:401:E806:85C0:33EF:62A6:721F (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is also similar to 2022's Tropical Storm Colin, which does not have (and does not warrant) its own article. It is way too soon to stary a draft article on this system. The storm's summary section in this article should be built first. If/when there is noteworthy impact, or the subsection gets too big, then start an article draft. Drdpw (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Any given article can reach GA status. Depending on what it does, it might take more to get it into GA status (assuming it gets an article). ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

i got a notification from the weather channel and looked and it says now it's tropical storm Ophelia ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Given how impactful the storm has become, I think an article is warranted at this point. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Impactful? No deaths, little inland flooding, minimal storm surge, no major infrastructure damage, no evacuations. Drdpw (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, an easy way of checking is by comparing section lengths. Ophelia's is about the same length as Nigel (though much longer than Harold). But it is utterly dwarfed by Franklin, Idalia, and Lee. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on the preparations, an article will not be justified iff we cut the storm off on the 24th when the WPC stopped tracking it. If we I no muse the continue impacts to NYC that will be felt through Monday night, an article will likely be justified. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Might be a stretch to attribute anything weather-wise tomorrow in NYC to Ophelia. I imagine that the frontal boundary over the region, and now absorbing Ophelia's PT low, will be the primary weather maker in NYC tomorrow. It looks like the low is done for by tonight. Drdpw (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s a draft, but it has to be updated and improved before it is moved to mainspace. Needs to be updated to cover the preparations and impacts associated with Ophelia as well. Tails Wx 13:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Philippe

I thought it was pronounced fi-LEEP. Some people say fi-LEE-pay. I doubt that the latter pronunciation is right because it is more likely to be French (in French final e's are not pronounced unless they are marked with an accent) than Spanish (in Spanish e's are never silent.) This is because Spanish doesn't use the ph digraph for the f sound; only English, French, and German do. Georgia guy (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The former is indeed correct; the NHC's pronunciation guide lists it as "fee-LEEP". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

About time to call this season active?

Is it about time to call the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season an active and above-average one? As of September 28, we have seen 18 storms in this basin, 13 since August 15, and so far, the list already made it to Rina, the 17th named storm of this season. DENBRO1995 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m hesitant to call the season active until after it’s finished or a reliable secondary source has referred to it as active already. JayTee⛈️ 23:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we wait until the season is over before any statement on the season as a whole is made. Drdpw (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly counts as a notable storm?

Any storm that impacts land is notable? What is the exact critera editors agree on for an article to exist on a storm? Is there some imaginary discrepancy if a storm doesn’t kill an unfortunate soul, it isn’t notable enough for an article? 2605:8D80:404:840:7002:1B93:DA7E:ED0C (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines are at wp:NWEATHER. I generally look at how long the summary section in the season article is. If it is taller than the accompaning infobox then it might be eligible. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no formal criteria but a named tropical cyclone that impacts land significantly is a good rule of thumb for when to split an article of from the season page. The number of people killed by a hurricane is a very poor indicator of how notable a system is, as there are systems out there that haven't caused any or very few deaths but are still noteworthy for an article for various reasons. Cyclone Gabrielle from earlier this year is a prime example of this as the death toll scrapped into double figures.Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar to Mitch199811, I generally question "can the storm's story—significant meteorological history and its impact/aftermath—be well told in the summary section in the season article, without making the section too overly long?" For me, having a significant meteorological history and/or a significant impact on land are what make a tropical cyclone noteworthy enough for an article. Drdpw (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Would Ophelia be worthy of an article? It has caused significant erosion across the Carolina seaboard, so there is notability for damage but official numbers will be presented in the coming weeks. 2605:8D80:404:840:7002:1B93:DA7E:ED0C (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It could probably be done by my metric though you might want to check out it’s draft assuming it has one. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ophelia does not warrant an article solely on account of the beach erosion it caused. The draft currently does not contain information not in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Typically it's a matter of article length. If the material that would be in the article in question can reasonably be covered by the larger season article, then you shouldn't be splitting. If impacts are great enough then this shouldn't even be close. See Lee, which was fairly minor in impacts overall, but threatened land enough and eventually made landfall to where there is a lot that can be said about even just preparations. Harold, for example, is a great case of where an article is NOT needed. Minimal impacts, and the preparations are largely covered in the season article. I think a good rule of thumb is to ask if the storm would be noteworthy enough for an article independent of being named, Ophelia, for example, kinda just ended up being a wet and annoying blah for a weekend in the Mid-Atlantic. Then again, I guess you could cut out Franklin (which is borderline on prose anyway, IMO) and maybe even Lee in that situation, but that shows why prose is also important. So I guess consider both. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean we do have an article for Mindy, Claudette, and Danny. Though Mindy was unpredictable, Claudette killed people, and Danny formed in June(?). Its truly odd this season as no one is dying from anything. Even the only landfalling major hurricane couldn't even get a few dozen. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Deaths

So far we've had two Cat 1s, a Cat 2, two Cat 4s, and a Cat 5 -- with an amazing total of 12 (3) deaths attributed to the storms. Is this something near a record for minimal damage? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Its too early to say general statements about the season as that fact could change with hypothetical Hurricane Sean next week. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly; late season systems are sometimes quite deadly. Also, in terms of deaths in the United States, there have been several seasons in which there were fewer: www.statista.com. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, 1914 didnt do anything and 1907 is not too far behind. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Relief for landfalling storms

Though it is too soon to tell whether this will be a damaging season, this has been quite the relief from the extremely damaging seasons for the past 8(?) years 96.41.132.147 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM JayTee⛈️ 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

An admin should add semi-protection as there as been persistent vandalism from IP users in the past hour. In anticipation that it happens again, this action should be performed. Insendieum (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I just did my own post about this oops, I didn't see this till now. But yeah, it's ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2023_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1178136063

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2023_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1178135047

Examples of why this needs done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueony (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not enough to justify protection. A block of the IP would suffice if it occurs again. Noah, AA^Talk 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)