This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
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.
All the information on this page can fit within the section for Nana on the main article for the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season.
Strong oppose. This system is currently affecting land, which means that news about impacts and damage will likely appear within the coming days or even hours. CycloneYoristalk! 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The Winward Islands have done it for me, I think we should keep it.
Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Just because we merged your draft doesn't mean you go around and try to merge other drafts/articles. Also, info about disasters in lesser-developed countries usually comes later than developed countries. The update of information regarding impact in the Windward Islands (Thanks, @Cyclonebiskit: adds to the fact that there is information about the storm out there somewhere. ~Destroyeraa🌀 21:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@KN2731: I suggest you consider your editing opinion on this merge, as more information about impacts have been added, and a damage amount of $10.2 million has been estimated. ~Destroyeraa🌀 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reasons as above. Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but leaning merge - according to presently available news, impact is limited as Nana hit a relatively unpopulated stretch of Belize. Coverage in Belizean sources (see here for a list) looks to be dropping off, though something new may appear as damage assessments continue. Impact in Honduras seems to be confined to the Bay Islands (see here) but was relatively minor. AFAIK Guatemala and Mexico have only received heavy rain which isn't notable. Further information on impact/aftermath may become available on ReliefWeb but if nothing turns up in 2 to 3 days I'd be open to merging. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote to reflect new info. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nana has done $10.2 million as of 01:35 UTC today. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge. I could literally fit the whole impact section into Kyle’s section in the main season page and still have room since most of it is unnecessary sentences. Nana isn’t notable and the damage total will likely remain minimal. So it’s better off without an article.
Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Since you're the nominator, your vote doesn't count. CycloneYoristalk! 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose for now With the system possibly reforming in the Pacific, I'd wait, but a merger is not off the table due to the limited impacts.ChessEric (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Strong oppose The addition of the impacts to the Windward Islands has decided it for me. I don't think we should merge.ChessEric (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: Nana and Julio are considered separate systems by the NHC, similar to Amanda and Cristobal earlier in the year. Julio isn't affecting land anyway. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose While impacts were very limited and there have been no reported casualties so far, the storm did create a lot of tension and anxiety in Belize. I was following the news from Belize before, during, and after the storm and they really took the storm preparations seriously and were very nervous about potential impacts. I would say at least for their sake we keep the article alive. Hurricane21 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That happens essentially every time a hurricane warning is issued... the question here is if the amount of relevant and notable content justifies splitting into a separate article. Any article that we "keep alive" must still adhere to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Lean Oppose While I think the gun was jumped a bit in moving this article from draft to full article very early on, I think it expands enough on the material in the main page to be stand-alone. I think we have several other articles on systems with less in them. That said though I'll circle back to my previous statement and say that we shouldn't be so quick to move these articles from draft to public so quickly. If there is still debate on the need for an article after the storm's dissipation then then the article shouldn't have been published so quickly, unless the storm ended up unexpectedly weakening before making landfall. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
TOO SOON by any chance. Hurricane articles have always been created before a storm makes landfall, and that’s how this project has dealt with landfalling storms for years. CycloneYoristalk! 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you are overstating how much it bothers me. I'm meant that in the most manner-of-fact way possible. I know I'm in the minority but I feel that if we even have to have this discussion in hindsight then maybe the system wasn't a sure enough bet to get an article, and in my opinion that's jumping the gun. Nothing egregious, just my take on the situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on consensus, I think we should close this discussion. ~Destroyeraa🌀 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Pierre cb: Yes, you can use it if it is to really from NASA or NOAA. However, don't put it in the infobox, as we only use real-color images. Thanks. ~Destroyeraa🌀 13:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox Image
I’ve noticed that the satellite image for Nana is several hours off from peak intensity and I have found an image of it at peak intensity in Wikipedia Commons. However, it seems to be a day/night image, although, I did find Typhoon Bopha’s infobox with a very similar image. So should we change Nana’s infobox image to this -
We have no good picture of this storm at peak and this one is also just another one. It is black and while and also kinda blurry so its better to not use it and keep the one we had. Typhoon Bopha's pic wasn't as blurry as this one either. This is just what happens when a storm decides to jump from 60 to 75 mph in 3 hours right before landfall in the middle of night: no one's there to pic up the reins! LOL!ChessEric (talk·contribs) 20:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh what? I literally can't see it. Also, I wouldn't consider midnight as the middle of the night, as the sun rose at 5:39 AM and set at 6:04 PM. (Ok, it's only 15 minutes off). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New map
So I like the map that Cyclonebiskit (talk·contribs) added. Sure, it contains Julio, but this article already mentions the MH about Julio. That doesn't mean the article needs to be retitled either. We're talking about the MH, and the new map does a better job conveying that than the map of path of when Nana was only a tropical cyclone. It's a similar usefulness to including the points when a TC is extratropical. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with using the new combined track map. It's much more informative than the map for just Nana, and honestly, for a storm like this one that regenerated in a different basin, it suits this article much better. Especially since Julio's MH has been incorporated into this article (which is required for any promotion to GA or beyond, anyway). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity on why I created the map in the first place, it is indeed to show the entire lifecylce of the two systems. The NHC clearly states Julio is a continuation of Nana, but I've made sure to state that they are considered separate within the article. While a combined article could be warranted here, there really isn't anything of note with Julio to justify the clunky "Hurricane Nana and Tropical Storm Julio" article title, thus just having it as Nana with a small paragraph covering Julio in the met hist seems most appropriate to me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit I disagree with the track map, since Julio has little to no participation on the page itself. I can accept the little excerpt about Julio on MH since its innofensive, almost imperceptible, but if anything further than that, then in my opinion the article should be renamed to something like "Hurricanes Nana and Julio", and include more info related to Julio, we should go all out on it. NHC never stated that Julio is a "continuation" of Nana, but rather that Julio formed from Nana's remnant's, and these aren't synonymous. ABC paulista (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed to changing the title. Nana was the hurricane, it made landfall, and caused all of the damage. Julio was a minor footnote, but it still deserves to be mentioned (as we always do with EPAC reformations of Atlantic storms). The map does a great job showing the history of the meteorological event. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Julio isn't part of Nana's history, and its inclusion on the track map might give the readers the impression that it is, which is untrue. I understand that some info about Julio is warranted to be included here, for the article to achieve GA status, but its track is more than what's acltually needed, I'd say it's unwarranted and undesired. This article is not about the "meteorological event", but solely about Nana, and I don't agree with such notion of a unified "meteorological event", since they are treated as separate events, just one forming from the other's leftovers. They are rleated, sure, but not more than that. ABC paulista (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, yes Julio was a part of Nana’s history, clearly established in the article through reliable sources. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources never established Julio as part of Nana's history, and assuming such only because the earlier reformed from the latter's remnants can be considered as
WP:SYNTH. A system formed from Nana's remnant's ≠ Nana proper. ABC paulista (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
.svg){kind=small}
