Talk:Hurricane Nadine

Help the article grow!

Merging doesn't have to be necessary, the article just needs to grow, and helping it achieve a good status would be amazing. Nadine is notable enough now, help build it! STO12 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And somebody deleted it. 72.184.173.146 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It was not deleted, it was merged. The article is not much better than it was when it was first merged, and while I am not strongly opposed to bring it back, i'd like to see if there was any real impact before it gets brought back unless of course, it is very high-quality. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the needed help with the "Impact" section. Users just need to help by looking up information and piecing it together. It doesn't really need to be merged, like I said before, it just needs help...and sitting there and saying "oh it's not going to be one because I feel no one will edit it", that is not true, users help edit all the time, why not help with this one? STO12 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this does not need to be merged; after all, nothing needs to be merged, this is a wiki. I'm sorry, but I am not helping because 1) it's in the Atlantic and 2) it's an active storm. Move the last sourced paragraph of the MH to the impact and source the cn spam stuff, and I am fine with keeping this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 02:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconds after I posted this comment, the cn span stuff has been scoured. Because of this, I moved the impact. There, I am okay with keeping this article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This article does not meet notability criteria. It needs to be merged. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How not? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Very little impact? Its section is four sentences that could be combined into one or two with a different wording style. There is nothing in the article that not be placed just as well in its storm section area. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the impact, so what? it's MH can not fit in the storm section area at all, i'm sorry. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it? Nadine's meteorological history up to this point has been consolidated into two paragraphs. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was never consolidated in the first place. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

i like the article but it has a few sp. errors. however i think i would loose meaning, apparently Nadine behaved predictable only in hindsight moving towards the azores. interesting how it suggests somewhat near critical circumstances rather far north and west, worth comparing that?62.195.7.176 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was working to make it like a Meteorological history of Hurricane X article. Since the MH is the primary reason we have Nadine's article, we have to make it the MH section large and detailed (well, not like the size of a novel), or else notability will not be established. I believe it would be wise to format the article like Hurricane Epsilon. So we could format the article with a break down in the MH as something along this line; "Origin and strengthening" first, then "Weakening, subtropical, and extratropical transition", after that "Regeneration, intensification, and peak intensity", and finally "Extratropical transition". After that, we should kept the Impact section the way it is, after improvements to writing, obviously. Unfortunately, I have been too busy in the last few days to improve the article, but at least now the article has a chance to survive.--12george1 (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should it be merged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Hurricane Nadine notable enough to have its own standalone article instead of being merged into 2012 Atlantic hurricane season? 02:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal. Not everything needs to be RFC'd. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree I think we should hear this one out, not every hurricane or tropical storm needs an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Hurricane Nadine does have it's long lived thing going for it so I do not know if that would pass it being notable. My arguement for the merge would be not every storm needs an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but AFAIK RFC's are used for extreme debates. Also, how do you oppose an RFC, it's either, keep, merge, or neutral. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC's are requests for chat so they can be used to gain more of an input as well on small debates such as this. For mergers it's usually support or oppose in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Merge And not every article needs to be merged. Some articles just need a little help, and I'm pretty sure once the storm has dissipated, there should be information documenting the storm's existence, and its impact to the Azores. It just needs help, what I've been seeing for a long time with many articles that want to merged, is that many users think that there is no information on it anywhere. Or they are just to lazy to look. I've been looking, and I have seen other user look too, it's just a little hard right now because the storm is active. Instead of rebelling against it, find out if there is more information on it somewhere, if the article sticks the way it is long after it has dissipated, then it can be merged. STO12 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What ST012 said. Merging, especially with storms with interesting MH's, is pointless if an article is in at least halfway decent shape. Even though I do not like working on active storm articles, a good suggestion for finding more info are discussions from the NHC and/or looking at non-english sources. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Agree (Oppose merge) I think that almost any tropical cyclone that interacts with land should have its own article, and that seems to be the case with the 2012 storms. Notice that (basically) all the storms that interacted with land have their own separate article (Isaac, Ernesto, Leslie, Helene, etc., except for Alberto and Gordon). In fact, it seems as if land interaction makes a cyclone notable, doesn't it? And in this case, Nadine interacted with the Azores. Also its long existence and regeneration are particularly interesting. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Agree? I'm a bit unclear as to what is being proposed, so my vote is against a merge. I think the article has developed enough into its own article. The storm's length, impact on the Azores, and unique history make it notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - For now at least. It was mentioned on this morning's BBC News that Nadine is contributing to the UK's current headline-making severe weather. (I have only found this online through 'This is Staffordshire' so far.) Let's wait and see if (a) the weather here continues to be big news, and (b) the connection is made by a wider range of reliable sources. As both the flooding here and the longevity of Nadine are developing stories, I think we should wait and see. (If there weren't an article, I wouldn't be arguing for it to be created, but it seems pointless to remove something we may end up re-creating.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge - For one, the question is worded a little weird for me to understand what's going on I get it now.. It's about merging it because the RfCer doesn't believe this meets notability... Secondly, Nadine has the possibility to become one of the longest lived cyclones in Atlantic history (according to the NHC's Forecast Discussions) in post-storm analysis. Thirdly, I see no way to merge this article into the 2012 season article in a way that is condensing (if that's a word) without losing information or being too long. Like some above, I wouldn't be jumping on the wagon of wanting this article to be created, but I wouldn't outright oppose it either. Now that it's here, might as well keep it at least until the end of this season, then maybe slight merge. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge – I supported the merging of this article a few days. However, after taking a look at WP:NOTABILITY, despite having very little impact, Nadine has lasted long enough, and created itself an interesting enough Meteorological history, to have its own standalone article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - And another thing going for it is the crazy language the forecasters at the NHC have begun to use in relation to Nadine... Like "performing loop-the-loops" etc. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment – I was just looking at the past track and it looks like Hurricane Nadine is making a "loop-the-loop" for the third time in twenty days! –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - That has to be a record for number of loop-the-loops made by one system. Or at least, it makes it pretty notable, because I don't know about you, but I don't see 3 loop-the-loops made too often. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment – If you want to, watch this animation to see if I'm right. The first one is a tiny east loop, the second is the gigantic loop near the Azores, and the third is in progress. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Comment - I was never saying you were wrong. But that is a good reference for those who don't believe the loops (or are too confused from watching them). Also, I could see someone saying 4 (first near Azores, second SE of Azores, third happening now, and one huge one for the whole track). gwickwire | Leave a message 03:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Comment – Sorry, I didn't mean to act like you said I was wrong, I just wanted to show some proof – especially for other people just in case :). About the four loops, that's probably right. And, finally, thanks for the barnstar! (BTW This indentation is getting pretty deep) –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge – Hurricane Nadine is currently the 7th longest-lasting storm ever recorded in the Atlantic basin – that's extremely notable. And, it will probably even go up on the records list for the next few days. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Request for closure - I think there is a clear consensus not to merge this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge If you merge every element of of a set into the discussion of the whole set (which essentially is a different topic), you wind up with a midden in which one must dig around for every item of interest. That approach is BS. Any article that can stand on its own feet on the basis of its coherence, its internal interest and its links and context should be left in peace. It is not as though 0.1% of the articles being of vanishing minority interest would bring WP to its knees. I strongly support the presentation of knowledge because someone might find it of interest or value, rather than suppressing it because someone might not. And I don't see that this article is of vanishing minority interest (non-notable, if you like). JonRichfield (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Nadine (2012)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• You use a lot of lead-ins for the lead (ex. "By the following day...", "Early on September 15...") Try to limit that.

• Alright, I eliminated several.--12george1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• A new paragraph is in many ways like a new idea. For that reason do not start off with "However" or any similar word.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "...and tracked aimlessly across the eastern Atlantic." - I wouldn't necessarily say that given its proximity to the Azores and, if I'm not mistaken, minor impacts there.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "However, increasingly unfavorable conditions weakened Nadine back to a 65 mph (100 km/h) tropical storm on October 1, as conditions became increasingly unfavorable." - No need to describe the unfavorable conditions twice. :-)

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "By the early on October 3, strong wind shear and decreasing sea surface temperatures (SST's) significantly weakened the storm." - Remove "the" in the lead-in.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Later that day, Nadine transitioned into an extratropical and merged with an approaching cold front northeast of the Azores." - An extratropical what?

• Extratropical cyclone--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Thereafter, central dense overcast developed and due to favorable conditions, the National Hurricane Center noted the possibility of rapid deepening" - Refer back to what I said about a new paragraph/idea and what not to use to start off.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Later on September 12, intensification continued a quicker, but not rapid rate; by the end of the day, sustained winds reached 65 mph (105 km/h)" - Should be an "at" after "continued".

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Although further strengthening was anticipated, an increase in wind shear by September 16 was noted" - This sentence would probably be better suited farther down in the paragraph. Or it may not be needed at all as we head into the next bullet...

• Eh, I don't think that sentence is needed at all.--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Later on September 13, the National Hurricane Center noted that "The window for Nadine to strengthen may be closing", citing computer model consensus of an increase in wind shear and little change in structure." - Even if the text was originally capitalized, none of the quote shouldn't be.

• ALRIGHT, IF YOU CAN PROMISE NOT TO SHOUT.--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Either late on September 13 or early on September 14, Nadine began moving west-northwest and eventually north-northeast around the southwestern periphery of the subtropical ridge" - Why do you have to choose? It had to have begun on one of those two days, but not both.

• It was actually during those two days.--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• " The satellite appearance of Nadine became more ragged early on September 14, with a decrease shower and thunderstorm activity, as well as convective banding diminishing in the eastern semicircle" - No need for the second part of that sentence.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Nadine turned northward on September 14, as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge" - I see no need for a comma there.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "However, hours later, Nadine began "to look a little more ragged", as microwave data observations noted shearing of deep convection to the northeast of the center." - No comma after the quote.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Although winds increased to 60 mph (95 km/h), the storm weakened again and decreased to 45 mph (75 km/h) tropical storm by early on September 25." - State a duration for the wind increase. Either add "a" after "decreased to" or take away "tropical storm".

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Nadine remained a hurricane the entire time and was intensifying further." - Confusing sentence.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Winds were increased to 85 mph (140 km/h) early on September 30, as the eye became more distinct" - No comma.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "After peak intensity, Nadine began weakening once again and was deteriorated to a tropical storm at 1200 UTC on October 1." - "Was deteriorated" is weird wording.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Northwesterly winds began to increase early on October 3, after an upper-level trough that was causing low wind shear moved eastward" - No comma.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "before becoming fully separated from the convection at 1500 UTC." - So, right at 1500 UTC, the low became fully separated?

• Would "by" work better?--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "while located about 195 miles (314 km) southwest of the central Azores." - Round to the nearest five.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• " Operationally, the National Hurricane Center considered Nadine a tropical cyclone until 1500 UTC on October 4, three hours after ASCAT data indicated that a closed circulation no longer existed." - Why this sentence?

• I don't know. So I could include the last advisory in the article? JK.--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued as Nadine approached the Azores twice." --> "Tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued on two separate occasions as Nadine approached the Azores."

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "At 1000 UTC September 18" - "on" between the day and time.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "After re-generating, Nadine posed a threat tot the Azores again, and thus, a tropical storm watch was issued for the entire archipelago at 1500 UTC on September 1." - "tot"?

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "After Nadine became extratropical, the warning was discontinued, at 1500 UTC on September 4." - No need for the last part of that sentence.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "When only counting time spent as a tropical storm or hurricane – 20.75 days – Nadine is the third longest-lasting, Hurricane Ginger in 1971 and the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane." - Missing a few words there?

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• "When Nadine was upgraded to a hurricane at 1800 UTC on September 14, it marked the third-earliest forming eighth hurricane, behind only 1893 and 2005" - You're talking about specific storms in the season, not the season themselves, so include the storms' names.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good job on the references, by the way.

Overall, the article is not too terribly far away from GA status, but it definitely needs a copy edit. Try to limit the number of lead-ins you use, as you use A TON. A simple reword would work for some of them as well. I'll put the article on hold for the time being. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Passing. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 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: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Nadine (2012) → Hurricane Nadine – Only hurricane named Nadine. Jdcomix (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Nadine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221023/http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=60442 to http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=60442

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)