Talk:Hurricane Katia (2011)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

Should this article be merged? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I reverted the reversion of the merging of this article. This storm fails WP:N, not to mention that the editor who wants to keep this article's main argument was basically WP:CRYSTAL. Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy merge of non-encyclopedic content per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:N, WP:CBALL and probably more. The current article consists of a bunch speculations and trivia, and is very misleading in nature. The storm is currently at sea (non-notable), and still has a long way to go; the addition of newsy speculation and "where it could possibly go" disintegrates everything Wikipedia stands for as an encyclopedia. ★ Auree _talk 02:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how exactly does a subject with over a thousand news articles [1] in the last 4 days fail WP:N? CNN, Reuters, Bloomberg, LA Times... It also is not routine reporting, it is projected to become a major storm. If it ends up not doing damage, merge it then. Monty₈₄₅ 02:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Check what each of those say about Katia....All of them are just restating what the National Hurricane Center is saying..."Katia formed", "Katia Strengthens", "Katia expected to become a major hurricane", etc... There's no additional information available through those sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles show that people are paying attention to the storm, which is what makes it notable. Is there something here that overrides WP:GNG? Monty₈₄₅ 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's ignore the coverage (even though all those agencies basically report the same; that is, a rehash of what the National Hurricane Center is reporting). What else of encyclopedic value is there to include at this point? It has never affected land, nor has it prompted any preparations. If you'd look at the misleading article that was created for this storm, you'd see that it still patently violates WP:CBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. Significant coverage is news, and does not coincidence with the warrant of an encyclopedic article. 02:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of encyclopedic information in the article. The history of the storm's formation for one. As the subject is notable based on the media attention, that history is defacto encyclopedic. Monty₈₄₅ 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

World-wide, thousands of storm complexes form each year. Just because there is evidence of its development, does not mean it is notable enough to merit an article of its own. Besides, brief media attention DOES NOT make a subject encyclopedic. Please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ★ Auree _talk 02:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"The history of the storm's formation for one." -- There's very little history to this storm, its precursor can only be traced back two days prior to becoming a tropical depression and the info can just as easily be written into the season article in a nice paragraph. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, WP:N says that subjects that meet the criteria justify standalone articles. While it could be written in to it, I don't see that as sufficient justification to speedily merge this, especially when the guidelines say this meets the criteria for a separate article. Monty₈₄₅ 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A brief mention in a few media sources? Sure, apply WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, but over a thousand, in some of the largest publications in the world, covering the topic? Look, if it turns out to be a minor storm that no one will remember, merge it later, but it looks extremely notable now. Certainly it justifies a full discussion, rather then a speedy pre-discussion merge. Monty₈₄₅ 03:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

From a meteorological standpoint, currently the most important part of the storm since there's no social influence, Katia is a run-of-the-mill storm....there have been hundreds like this within reliable records and likely thousands prior to that. As I stated in an earlier edit on the article, every tropical cyclone is inherently notable by Wikipedia guidelines; however, there has to be a limit on how many actually get articles. Your main point here is that there are thousands of reports on it, yes? But like I said before, they're all the same. Until there are effects on land, there will be no additional information gained from those sources that isn't mentioned by the National Hurricane Center. Therefore, these "thousands of sources" become a single source which does no make something notable. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many tropical storms, but most don't get this level of attention. While the track past the next few days is very speculative, all the models show this strengthening into a category 3 storm, which will threaten many populated places. While it may turn out to miss, or not strengthen, and end up being insignificant, the threat is why it is receiving such widespread coverage, and why it is different from many other tropical storms which do not receive this level of coverage at a similar stage. Monty₈₄₅ 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So it's something that's "different" in that it garners a lot of media coverage because it could turn into something significant, aye? That's basically how you've described it, and surely it's not within the definition of what constitutes a viable candidate for an encyclopedic subject. Sure, it's getting a lot of attention right now, but in no way is such a speculative event in the future worthy of an article yet. ★ Auree _talk 10:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote the most relevant sentence from the guideline on whether something should have an article: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. It is not appropriate for editors to reject this guideline because they feel that something is "run-of-the-mill". And I disagree that all information is from a single source - NHC - since news articles, at minimum, can report "concerns", preparation, disagreements of models, etc. In any case, to quote WP:NOT, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content. So we don't have to pick and choose about what we include. If the article ends up being fairly short - Katia becomes a level 2 hurricane, but never comes ashore - that's fine. We'll have a fairly short article that will quickly answer people's questions about "that hurricane in 2011 that got big but never hit anything, right after Irene". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not worth me fighting over anymore.... I'm just going to back down from this and at least make the article useful if it has to stay. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Merge. It technically fails our guideline as they are practical re-writes of advisories. Let's not go back to what happened in 2008 where we gave articles for everything. most of which have now benn merged (some controversially). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge back' for now. It is not affecting anyone at this time and not in the next few days. Not until the weekend at least should an article be needed. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a good reason why we cannot wait 7-10 days. If the storm turns out to be insignificant, I will be happy to support merging. This subject clearly qualifies for a separate article under widely accepted community standards. One extra article isn't going to cause the Wikimedia servers to implode if we let it stick around for a week. Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So the storm is presumed notable until proven not notable? Why not create an article about me, and if in 7-10 years I'm still not notable, you can delete it. Come on, we don't create articles about subjects that may become notable. Create a sandbox and then turn it into an article if the storm becomes notable. DOSGuy (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is in fact notable under the standards of the General Notability Guidelines. I'm not saying it will become notable, I am saying it already is. Monty₈₄₅ 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the standard that you're using for notability. Given the impact of Irene, of course the formation of this storm is getting a small mention in newspapers around the world. This storm is thousands of miles from land and has done no harm to anyone or anything. It absolutely could become notable if it impacts Bermuda or the United States or Atlantic Canada at some point, but there is no landmass within the 5 day cone of uncertainty for this storm. You said yourself that you would support merging if the storm turns out not to be significant, suggesting that the storm is currently notable, but could cease to be notable in the future (if nothing of note happens). I don't believe that a notable subject ceases to be notable after the newspapers stop talking about it. Once something is notable, it will always be notable. Right now, there is a chance that this storm will not be notable in the future, so it isn't notable now. DOSGuy (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's currently a hurricane and it's likely going to be reported on fairly heavily since it's post-Irene. How can it now be deemed not-notable? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It hast not done so yet. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done what? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Affected land. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is not really relevant when there is 1964 news articles related to Tropical Storm/Hurricane Katia. Monty₈₄₅ 03:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how many newspapers there are in the world? Because Irene was devastating, it's typical that (let's liberally say) 1% of the newspapers in the world are already talking about this storm. Every new storm makes the news after a hurricane makes landfall. Every earthquake made the news after the Japan earthquake. Being a trending topic does not make something notable. DOSGuy (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't affected land...how is that relevant to whether or not it meets the notability guidelines? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Monty845, they are all practical re-writes of advisories, so they fail WPTC's guideline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion - All this bickering is getting nowhere, may I suggest we put this to a !Vote so we can actually get some organized idea of where editors stand? -Marcusmax(speak) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I say Weak Merge for now. I might say keep when and if Katia get stronger. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
  • Speedy merge - Notability is not measured in newspaper mentions. Cyclones form all the time, and no one will ever be interested in them unless they impacted someone somewhere. We create articles when things become notable; we don't create articles in case they become notable and then delete if they don't. DOSGuy (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

    To a large extent notability is measured just that way. When independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage, the subject is notable. We don't second guess the news media's decision to make a subject notable. Monty₈₄₅ 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any significant coverage? Lots of newspapers are copying the NHC notice that the storm exists, as they often do whenever any storm forms. Or are you using significant to mean quantity of coverage rather than quality of coverage? DOSGuy (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Strong Oppose This article clearly meets all applicable guidelines for an article. It is unambiguously a notable subject and deserves a separate article. There are plenty of news articles that do more then just repeat the advisories. Remember, we don't vote, this is about arriving at consensus, and all of the recent discussion in favor of merging has been about personal preference, rather then on how the guidelines that the community has agreed upon by consensus should be applied. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, let's use the guidelines that the community has agreed upon. We never give a storm an article until it is about to make landfall, or unless it sets some kind of record (intensity, longevity, rapid strengthening, etc.). Why should we change the rules for this storm? DOSGuy (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You say we never give a storm an article unless it makes landfall, what about Hurricane Shary (2010) wind gusts made it to 35mph in the worst hit area, with half an inch of rain, Hurricane Julia (2010) never struck land as a large storm, Hurricane Fred (2009) would have gone unnoticed without satellite imaging, no impact, Tropical Storm Josephine (2008) half an inch of rain in the worst hit area with no damage, an inch somewhere else after it dissipated. Hurricane Helene (2006) no impact listed at all, and in fact every 2006 and 2005 hurricane has an article. Show me where a community discussion occurred and decided that the criteria you want to apply overrides WP:GNG. Monty₈₄₅ 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have said impacted land. Has Katia impacted land yet? DOSGuy (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW...Katia does fail WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." All of the sources are repeats of the National Hurricane Center advisories and are therefore trivial repetition, regardless of how notable a specific news source may be. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely misread the meaning of "more than a trivial mention". What that means is, for example, that if the name of a police spokesperson is mentioned in ten thousand articles, he/she still isn't notable, because the articles are about something else (a crime, a reorganization, whatever). But in the case of Katia, there are hundreds or thousands of articles where Katia is the main topic. Arguing that the ultimate source of the articles is NHC advisories is not on point. (And I disagree that this is true; not only are there other sources of data, but also there are also matters such as preparation, concerns of another storm, questions about global warming impacts, etc.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Oppose for all of the reasons Monty gave above and because I don't buy that this storm doesn't meet notability guidelines. I'd have to see some hard evidence to the contrary in order to change my vote. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you need? The storm hasn't hurt anyone. The whole problem is the absence of evidence that this storm has made the news for anything other than briefly existing, which is a common occurrence. I need some evidence of notability to change my vote. DOSGuy (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as separate article. Wikipedia notability is about there being a lot of news coverage. Period. Full stop. To argue that something is in the news only because of reason X, and therefore all the news coverage doesn't count, is to propose changing WP:N. If you think that WP:N should make exceptions for news "about something briefly existing", then please go ahead and propose that elsewhere (on the talk/discussion page for WP:N, specifically). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and keep as separate article per John Broughton, especially his earlier comments regarding trivial mentions. Moogwrench (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for the simple fact that people know about it. My co-worker and some people around my town (who were affected by Irene) know it by name. If the storm does nothing, merge it later. I think this is an exception and not the rule, given that there was just a widely impacting hurricane and this is closely on its tails. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, I have changed my opinion per Hurricanehink. Also, it looks like with the forecast track that Katia is more likely to affect land.--12george1 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Katrina's Replacement

It needs to be well mentioned that the 2011 names were recycled from 2005. Hurricane Katrina was retired so replaced with Katia. It needs to be mentioned because Katrina was the costliest hurricane of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.145.36 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from but it really has no need to be mentioned. It's a trivial bit of info that connects two completely separate events. Katia has no meteorological connection to Katrina. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We have mentioned about that in the "Storm names" section of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season: "This is the same list used in the 2005 season with the exception of Don, Katia, Rina, Sean, and Whitney, which replaced Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma, respectively." --12george1 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Image

• 
  Current
• 
  Proposed
• 
  Later that day

I want to know if this proposed version of the image in article box would be better then the one currently? It is higher resolution and shows more of the storm, the problem is that it had to be rotated in order to do so. Also might the one that was captured later that day be of any use? Supportstorm (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Later that day" photo is better than the proposed image. The current photo shouldn't be considered (in my opinion) because of the area that's missing from it. An article box photo should be the best representation of the article subject as possible. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This just dropped into my inbox

This just dropped into my email inbox from the UKMO, and it should be off use here. Im a bit busy Rewaing to add it atm.Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good find. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Katia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello TropicalAnalystwx13, I will be reviewing this tonight.--12george1 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• "increased wind shear, an impinging cold front, and increasingly cool ocean temperatures all prompted" - Wikilink wind shear, cold front, and sea surface temperature
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk)
• "Winds over hurricane-force impacted numerous locations" - I think the word "over" should be removed and then first part be reworded because I don't think there's such a thing as winds stronger than hurricane force
  • Yes. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• "The storm was responsible for two deaths: one when a tree fell on a vehicle in County Durham, United Kingdom, and another during a multi-car accident on the M54 motorway resulting from adverse weather conditions" - You should probably say "The storm was responsible for two deaths in the United Kingdom:..." and removed United Kingdom after County Durham, so then it is immediately known that both deaths occurred in the UK
  • Ok. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• "In total, the post-tropical cyclone caused £100m ($122 million 2016 USD) in damage in the United Kingdom alone." - Is that the only damage toll? The infobox says $157 million USD (2011). Or is there a discrepancy because the USD totals are different years? Regardless of the reason, make them both 2011. Also, delink United Kingdom here if you follow through on the previous comment
  • Yeah, USD totals are different years and British pound has been decreasing in value (157 mill. 2011 --> 127 mill. 2016). Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• "On August 27, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring" - Wikilink National Hurricane Center
  • Ok. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Guadeloupe for the potential of 3–5 meter (10–16 ft) swells.[13] Antigua and Barbuda recorded 0.85 inches (21.59 mm) of rainfall" - Why the switch in the order of the units?
  • Idk. :P TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• I was out of town until yesterday. I'm gonna pass this now.--12george1 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Track to include Europe

Should the track of Post Tropical Katia be extended to Europe? The storm was notable there for it's high winds and death of a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is one big problem preventing the track map being extended, and that is that no points have been published after the 10th in any of the RBT's.Jason Rees (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it kinda weird that the only part of Katia's track that actually affected land: Europe (though being post-tropical in that time) is missing on the track map. 77.38.44.85 (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no official track data for that portion of the storm's history. It'll be available in a few months once the Tropical Cyclone Report is written up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The TCR is up, and the track now includes Europe. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move - Hurricane Katia (2011)

The new Katia is forecast to become a hurricane, and this Katia wasn't particularly notable. Jdcomix (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't become a hurricane yet. So hold off until it becomes one. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Katia post tropical cyclone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)