Talk:Hurricane Otto

Requested move 24 November 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nomination withdrawn (it was looking like a snowy situation anyways). (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Otto (2016) → Hurricane Otto – Stronger of the two (Otto in 2010 was 80/976, Otto 2016 is 110/975, both in terms of wind AND pressure. Plus, the 2016 storm is much more significant. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This storm is very likely going to cross basins so the storm's name would be Hurricane Otto–Virgil. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the new policy is that if a tropical cyclone's circulation dissipates over land and reforms in EPac, it would get the next name on EPac list. The NHC says Otto will stay intact as it moves into the Eastern Pacific, so Otto will retain its name. Per Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson of Weather Underground:
  With land influence at a relative minimum, Otto is expected to be a tropical storm when it enters the Pacific on Friday. In this case, Otto would keep its name in the Pacific. Should Otto dissipate, but its remnants manage to redevelop in the Pacific, the new storm will take the name Virgil from the Eastern Pacific list.
  — Dr. Jeff Masters & Bob Henson
  --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not guaranteed that this storm will be more significant. Strength doesn't matter, only damage does.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not clear cut that the storm is more significant, at least at this stage. And why would the storm be named Virgil? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not the only Hurricane Otto and there is no obvious reason to get the main title at this time. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Ok so I have to deal with this again because someone had requested a merge with a similar reason few weeks ago. So, if a storm is notable, we remove the year (eg. Hurricane Katrina). If the storm name is retired, do the same (eg. TS Elsa). Though if the storm name was not retired and was not notable, keep the year, especially how we have another Otto in 2010. Plus, your reason does not make sense as intensity does not matter. Come on @MarioProtIV:, you should know better! :( Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, I guess it can stay where it is rn, so this can be closed and denied, but if it gets retired then we'll talk. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why hasn't the storm been renamed Virgil

Now that the storm has crossed into the Pacific, I thought it would had been renamed to Tropical Storm Virgil like they did in 1996 when they renamed Tropical Storm Caesar to Tropical Storm Douglas when it crossed over. So I am assuming that there was a change to the renaming rule and we need to find a source on this. I don't know when this rule was changed where they no longer rename storms that cross over so that is why I am looking for a source for this. I am also gonna remove the statment that Caesar Douglas was the last storm to cross over on that article. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 11:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy about crossover storm's naming changed some years ago: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B5.html. Now, all tropical cyclones that mantain its tropical status during the crossover will not be renamed.ABC paulista (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that the system got a new number though. The other RSMC I understand, because it would have been a different agency monitoring the system. Grifforzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:8101:E2F0:FD65:26CA:A987:A7AD (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the RMSC was the same in both basins, all basins has their own numbering system and sequence, so a storm change its number to match the basin's sequence regardless who's monitoring it.ABC paulista (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]