Talk:Cyclones Judy and Kevin

Lack of discussion

On the discussion for creating this page, there was a clear lack of discussion for creating this page (or at least moving it into the mainspace). There should be more discussion and clear consensus (it was 2-1 for not creating the page) before making a single page about two separate cyclones. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

They created the combined page without solid discussion. HurricaneEdgar 23:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We should seperate these into two articles.

By this logic, we should also merge Ingrid with Manuel and Eta with Iota. Infinity The Second (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

While Jason does have the point that the impacts are more or less common, a single article must needs also have the earthquake in it - which leads to a total mess. Better to have a single article for impacts and separate MHs for the two storms (and possibly the earthquake too?) - to reduce the clutter. JavaHurricane 17:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to have these together, they are similar but they deserve singular articles with perhaps an article that talks about the disasters in Vanuatu as a whole (as JavaHurricane suggested.) Sria-72 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. While I edited this article a lot, I agree with everyone's reasons here. The quick succession of Judy and Kevin impacting Vanuatu is more of a parallel to 1985's Cyclone Eric and Cyclone Nigel, and is no way similar to tropical cyclones that lose their low-level circulation and regenerate into another TC (like Amanda and Cristobal or Katrina and Victor–Cindy). Also agree with Infinity The Second: if this logic will be followed, other TCs such as Zeb and Babs (1998), Ketsana and Parma (2009), and maybe even Bonnie and Charley (2004) should be merged in a single article. Vida0007 (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a problem when combining the articles. Maybe it should be separated for Judy and Kevin. A discussion should be started regarding combining or separate articles. HurricaneEdgar 21:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest rather than combining the two, a whole new article should be created for Vanuatu as they were in quick succession, as HurricaneEdgar said. The new article would be called '2023 Vanuatu disaster' and would focus on the damages caused by both storms, as well as potentially adding the M6.5 earthquake that happened near Espiritu Santo. The damages both caused in countries like New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands can be determined anyways. I think that works for everyone and to @Jason Rees:. Regards, 👦 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned before in the talk page in South Pacific basin, I think separating 2 articles is the best way to handle this (or even a "2023 Vanuatu Disaster" suggested by @Nino Marako) Since they both reach catastrophic intensity (cat 3 and cat 5 on SSHWS), it shouldn't be an article with a combination of twin tropical cyclone (even like a brief summary of an entire season). Once they are expected to bring huge damage to us, we should create a single article for each of them. Typhoonnerd (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Great idea for (2023 Vanuatu Disaster), which would cover earthquakes and cyclones, but I oppose combining Judy and Kevin as one article. HurricaneEdgar 00:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You should add the satellite image on Windy of the two storms at Kevin is in the strongest intensity. Nguyễn Quốc Anh (1248) (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about "disaster". There has been no deaths from Judy, Kevin, or the earthquake and not many reliable sources say it is a disaster. However yes, these articles should be separate. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've changed my opinion on this, it makes sense to have two tropical cyclones that impacted one area in a short period of time and whose impacts are hard to distinguish from each other. If there were two articles, each would inevitably have very similar preparations, impact, and aftermath sections. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree @RandomInfinity17 on instead of disaster, will "2023 March Vanuatu weather 'outbreak'(the wording is kinda hard to identify)" work? Since these 3 consecutive events didn't bring huge damage to the islands, but it is still a series of extreme weather, therefore I agree the wordings need to be adjusted. (or we could just focus on '2023 Vanuatu Climate' and mention a series of events happened on the period of early March.) Typhoonnerd (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement from Jason Rees

I boldly decided to combine Judy and Kevin into one article earlier today as both cyclones are being treated as one event in reliable sources and there is very little to no time inbetween the systems impacting the island nations for impacts to be split into Judy/Kevin. Hell the Vanautu NDMO has decided that it isnt even going to bother assessing the damage from Judy until after Kevin stopped impacting the islands. The first argument presented on Talk:2022-23 South Pacific cyclone season was that we shouldnt combine the articles because Kevin exceeded Judy's intensity, which while true is a very poor argument overcome by presenting the infobox for both systems. The second was that the layout and title could be confusing, but I personally reject that WP:I just don't like it argument in favour of following Wikipedia's rules on following what reliable sources are saying about the event and comprehensiveness. The third and final argument presented was basically, that we because we haven't merged Goni/Molave, which is WP:Other Stuff Exists territory.

We also have to bear in mind Wikipedia's rules do not care that Kevin/Judy were two separate intense tropical cyclones, not meterologically related or that the two TC's were not one system, they want the article to be comprehensive and to follow what the reliable sources are saying which in this case is that they are one event not two. This is because the reliable sources will not and do not separate the impacts of the systems in to this was Judy and this was Kevin, as it is pratically impossible to do so when we come to the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. I also suspect that @JavaHurricane: is putting too much weight on the earthquake, since it hasn't made it to the Earthquakes in Vanuatu list, despite being discussed in numerous reliable sources. As a result, I seriously doubt that an article entitled 2023 Vanuatu Disaster is the best way to go, since the impacts wont be able to be fully seperated in the Solomon Islands, yet alone in Vanuatu. It would also go against Wikipedia:Made up. I have seen comparisions to Cyclone Nigel and Eric of 1985 which have currently have seperate articles, but really need to be merged together in order to tell the story properly. I will also note that there was a rough consensus to merge them both a few years back but for time reasons I have never been able to follow through on this. You can argue that the article is a mess but hopefully we will be able to overcome it by working together, following Wikipedia's rules and create a new standard for systems that are clustered together.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The NDMO says nothing about differentiability. The line is simply that they are not going to start assessing the damage till Kevin is gone - ostensibly as the southern islands are hard hit and unreachable. And while I see your logic, it is explicitly WP:CRYSTAL to use this aspect of the damage till RSs confirm it. And if anything, the sources you mention would suggest that the only place where differentiation of damage will be problematic is Vanuatu south of Port Vila. JavaHurricane 02:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Jason. Kevin and Judy are not the same storm nor should be on the same article. Impacts of both are completely separate. Javas idea was not seriously and your taking it like its meant to be serious. Nigel nor eric are the same storm either. If we do this merger, we would have to merge Iota and Eta, add Karl to Julia etc etc etc. If Judy didn't lead into Karls formation, there is absolutely no need to merge them or vice versa. You also shouldn't go out of your way to do something without telling one single soul on this project. Drafts exist for a reason. Havocplayz

@Havocplayz: I have not stated that Eric/Nigel or Judy/Kevin were the same system and nor does this article give the impression that they were, however, I am stating that the impacts are not separate and that they are being treated as one event by reliable sources. As a result, these articles should be merged per Wikipedia's rules on comprehensiveness, original research and following what the sources are saying. As for merging Iota/Eta, Karl/Julia etc, I would repeat my earlier argument that this is where Wikipedia has got some of its coverage of the weather wrong as sometimes it is better that we focus on the overall event rather than doing individual articles for each notable weather system.Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What a joke. Let's right our wrongs and split the articles, as is customary for things like these. ~ AC5230 talk 01:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@AC5230: It isn't a joke to follow what our reliable sources are saying and merge the two articles, when the impacts can not be separated out and it is one event.Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They should be split into two different articles 2600:4041:47C:400:4804:426D:3D24:9A5 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Not at all per my earlier reasonings and Wikipedia's rules.Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are we gonna merge 2 separate systems that only have 2 things in common. Hitting the same country within 1-2 days and both being major hurricane equivilents. The impacts of both systems are not the same nor should be considered one event. This is the media we are talking about and final word rests with the NDMO or government in either case (NHC TCR on Hermine consider the migrant deaths separate from Hermine comes to mind here). Unless the NDMO or country's government say something in an official statement that confirms these are one event, these can't be merged. HavocPlayz (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@HavocPlayz: Why would WPTC/WPWX impose their will on what reliable sources are saying and breach the rules of the website that hosts the project in the first place in the process? At the end of the day, yes this is the media we are talking about but they are showing that the impacts can not be seperated out into this is from Judy and this is from Kevin. As for the government sources stating that this is one event not two, here is reuters stating that a state of emergency has been declared in Vanuatu for both tropical cyclones and not just Judy or Kevin. I am sure further proof could be found in the coming days.Jason Rees (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees I would like to see a proper response to the suggestions made above about taking this desire for a comprehensive article about the impacts and effects of the twin cyclones and moving much of this into a new article titled "2023 Vanuatu Disaster" or "Effects of Cyclones Judy & Kevin in Vanuatu". As you have cited, news articles and sources have taken the route of referring to the destruction caused by these cyclones as one event, but this "single event" is strictly referring to the impact on human civilization by these cyclones, not the meteorology. That is how conjoined cyclone articles (Amanda/Cristobal et. al.) have always been and should be managed, as the impacts and meteorology of both cyclones were related. Claiming to "abide by wikipedia rules" whilst changing established precedent on a whim without discussion doesn't seem appropriate at all. Especially when considering the high intensities of both cyclones and Kevin being the most intense cyclone of 2023 so far, wikipedia users such as myself who were interested in reading about Kevin's meteorological history and the high forecasting error when it was active should be noteworthy enough to deserve more than a small paragraph in the paired article. By joining the articles together you are forced to tradeoff between making the paired article become too cluttered with detailed meteorological history and impacts of both cyclones or to omit this information from the article, which would defeat your argument for "comprehension" in the first place. 138.51.94.152 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

My response is that I still believe that the only 1 article is needed and that this article is in the correct place per Wikipedis rules on being comprehensive and being concise with article titles. You can argue all you like that we should follow the meteorology and have separate articles on Judy/Kevin but personally that seems highly redundant. I also do not believe that the article would be as cluttered as you seem to think it would be or that we would be forced to trade anything off, once it is fully developed since we are talking about the same disaster, the same international aid, response etc. I should also note that i am hoping to get some time to work on the MH of both systens in the next couple of days, but real life takes priority.Jason Rees (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If we keep both of the storms in the same article, I believe it would be a much better idea to rename the article to something like Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin. Since these storms are meteorologically unrelated, the current name of the article is misleading. SolarisPenguin (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

i support this idea. It makes sense. It would appease both sides of this argument and keep this shorter than several days. HavocPlayz (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative split proposal

I am concerned that meteorological information will not fit neatly into an article on two storms yet at the same time I concur that it will be impossible to separate the impacts of the two storms. So why not have a third article, Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin in VanuatuEffects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin, that covers their common ground, while allowing the two storms to have separate articles on their meteorology. I think that would be a good compromise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support this idea. Regards, 👦 02:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

great idea! Metrological history of both cyclones can be separated into two separate articles as they have reached a relatively high intensity (1 has been identified as cat 5 from SSHWS too). Its origin, development and inital landfall, even STT could be mentioned in those two articles. And we could also mention that Kevin exceeds models' expectations and developed further. Overall, I think this idea sounds really convincing Typhoonnerd (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, allowing for the best of both worlds. I would support as well. SolarisPenguin (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely would support this. Sria-72 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to pour cold water on this idea/comprimise but the effects of Judy/Kevin were not limited to Vanuatu, with impacts occurring in both New Caledonia & the Solomon Islands which are indistingishable. I also strongly feel that keeping it in one article would be best and more compliant with Wikipedia's rules on comprehensiveness, original research and reflect what our sources are saying.Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Nothing about this is OR. Organization of information is orthogonal to whether that information is OR. We can title it more generally, like "Impacts of Cyclones Judy and Kevin", but I think there's insufficient support for one article. This probably needs an RFC @Jason Rees:.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

easy fix here. "Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin". Would include the effects of both storms in separate sections or we keep the individual impacts on New Caledonia and Solomon Islands restricted to their indivdual articles. it feels like you want any excuse to keep this merged article HavocPlayz (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, then the article can just be renamed to Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin, but the split can still occur. I don't know why that changes anything. SolarisPenguin (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@SolarisPenguin: Great idea. I've changed hte proposal accordingly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much what I've been thinking; I'd support this proposal. JavaHurricane 02:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. Separate the articles for Cyclone Judy and Cyclone Kevin, but a combined article for their effects. Vida0007 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I will support this great idea. HurricaneEdgar 03:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support splitting this article into three articles of Cyclone Judy (2023), Cyclone Kevin and Effects of Cyclone Judy and Kevin. This is a case where a single article for tropical systems doesn't seem to make sense. It's normal for mainstream news media to treat them as a single event, as events like this can make people distressed and personally affecting them. In my country, Seroja was reported and considered as "flooding and rain" event, not a tropical cyclone. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It makes sense if split it into three articles to avoid confusion also in meteorological history. HurricaneEdgar 06:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. This article should be split into three, with this one in particular being renamed into "Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin" and the other two being about the actual cyclones themselves (mainly their meteorological history and the preparations/impacts that can be distinguished and briefly described there). Vida0007 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don’t think there’s the content to have three separate articles. We often see articles become full with deadlinks and unsourced content. I think this is a good way to cover multiple storms impacting the same area. While I understand Judy and Kevin also affected areas outside of Vanuatu, none were so bad that it would get its own article. Considering that these storms are, in essence, subarticles of the season, then it makes perfect sense for these two storms to be combined into the same articles. Maybe have the effects listed like “Areas affected by both cyclones” as one section, and then “other areas” or something. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• • I do not agree. The meteorological histories are awkward to fit together. Becoming full of dead links and unsourced content is not dependent on how we present the information.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Not really. MH of one, followed by the other. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - three articles on this subject is overkill, especially since Judy's MH, as well as Judy's and Kevin's individual impacts, do not satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements. Obviously, having two tropical cyclones strike the same location within 48 hours is exceedingly rare and presents a unique issue for us. This is not the same as Manuel and Ingrid, which still caused notable individual impacts despite their combined impacts in some locations. This is also not the same as Iota and Eta, which struck 2 weeks...not 2 days...apart. Since Judy's MH and both of their impacts (that can be separated) are not notable, having them combined into a unique article like this makes the most sense. This is not too dissimilar from October 2008 Central America floods, where the effects of flooding via TD Sixteen and many other areas of low pressure were combined into a singular article. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point. Another article which can be compared to this one would be the 2020 Central Vietnam floods, although the individual storms there have their own articles as they impacted other countries (even including Linfa, because its precursor moderately affected the Philippines). As for the MH of the two cyclones, I think we should still wait until Kevin's MH has been expanded; Judy's has been expanded now (I believe it is roughly just as long as Eric and Nigel's meteorological histories). Vida0007 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Due to the sheer intensity of the systems, clear meteorological history is needed for each storm. Media may categorize it as a single event, but they are two separate storms. Meteorologist200 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Meteorologist200: A clear meteorological history will be provided for both systems in this article eventually, but since there is no way to seperate the impacts and is one event but two TC's, it is best imo per Wikipedia's rules that we keep it as one article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jason and Hink. While not exactly analogous, this seems like a situation where the Amanda and Cristobal practice is best applied. You have two systems that are distinct, but their impacts are not. Best practice is keeping the article roughly as it is at the moment and simply expanding from there. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good point on the impacts but aren't Amanda and Cristobal related with each other though, at least in a meteorological sense? Amanda's remnants became Cristobal, but in this case, Judy's remnants did not become Kevin (the latter even originated from the Australian region but was not named until it reached the South Pacific basin). Vida0007 (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Amanda and Cristobal are indeed related to each other, so this oppose has no basis. Regards, 👦 12:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Vida0007 and Nino Marakot: Read @DarkSide830:'s comments again as the oppose is valid, as all he is saying is that the format used with Amanda/Cristobal would work with Judy/Kevin. You may not like the article being combined but I personally believe that it is the format that makes the most sense as it works well with Wikipedia's rules on comprehensiveness, notability and doesnt seek to split or duplicate the impacts/aftermath as seperate articles on Judy/Kevin would. I also feel that anyone coming to this article would not be confused into thinking that they are one tropical cyclone and would note that the opening sentence makes it very clear that they were two seperate tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Amanda-Cristobal solution arised because of the lack of clear distinction between the two storms, and while from a meteorological angle you have more distinction here, Amanda and Cristobal had always been considered separate cyclones. The main driving force that kept those two systems indivisible, however, were the impacts, which in many cases could not clearly be ascribed to one system. I think the current organization of the article is a good way to adapt the Amanda-Cristobal system to Judy-Kevin to best cover both systems (meteorological summaries) but also their cross-over (impacts). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Point taken. However, I still stand by my ground that TC articles which have the word "and" should be reserved for two tropical cyclones which are distinct but nevertheless meteorologically related (some of these are Cyclones Katrina and Victor–Cindy, Cyclones Gulab and Shaheen, Tropical depressions Wilma and BOB 05, and Cyclones Rona and Frank).

  This situation is more comparable to the 2020 Central Vietnam floods which I have mentioned above: impacts cannot be attributed to a single system but the individual storms still had their own articles (albeit because those TCs also affected other countries). But frankly, I think this is more similar to the case of Cyclone Eric and Cyclone Nigel. The impacts of those two cannot be differentiated that much as they impacted Fiji within two days of each other just like Judy and Kevin, but the separate articles for the two cyclones were maintained. Both articles for those cyclones are well-sourced too.

  I would have said before that this is quite unprecedented here because we have two notable but meteorologically unrelated tropical cyclones which impacted the same area, but have inadequate sources to have them split into at least two separate articles. However, as of this writing, the references in this article has already grown to 65, with both Judy and Kevin getting enough references to support their respective sections there. That said, I think it is about time to split them; the impacts in Vanuatu could be both stated and cited in their respective articles. Vida0007 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Vida0007: Yes the situation is similar to Cyclones Eric and Nigel which struck both Vanuatu and Fiji and it has already been mentioned that there was a discussion to merge them a couple of years back which ended in a rough consensus to merge, but it was never completed for various reasons including time before the start of this discussion. I would do it now but it would be extremely bad faith, pointy and a breach of WP:NPOV. I also feel that we have to remember that Wikipedia's rules on article titles do not care if the two systems are meteorologically related, but what sources are reffering to the event as and in this case the majority of sources including the Governments of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu's NDMO combine them into two tropical cyclones and one event. The amount of references provided so far has no bearing on if the articles should be split and as a result, I remain opposed to a split of this article into two or three seperate articles as it would be redundant.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article you are referencing takes this to another level though. Those floods were attributed to NINE separate cyclones that impacted Vietnam across an entire month, several of which having significant impacts elsewhere. As currently composed, splitting this article would probably yield 3 very short articles. You could do it, but this article isn't exactly long, to the point where anything that needs to be said about both cyclones can be accomplished here. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• SupportCutlerys (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 03:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Now people Cleary support split over keep it like this, so now we should just split it 2600:4041:47C:400:4039:1BCC:E81:5A7A (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We can split into three or maybe even four or five seperate articles if the community really wishes to ignore its own rules, most of the sources from the media, relief agencies and various government agencies of the Pacific who combine the two tropical cyclones into one event, however, it would be overkill and extremely redundant, when everything can be handled and presented neatly in this article without sacrificing anything.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been 4 weeks since the discussion began; it should be closed? following the people's agreement that the article should be split. HurricaneEdgar 07:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar: There has been no agreement that this article should be split into three and I for one am very much opposed to the redundancy this would cause since it is being treated as two tropical cyclones and one event by various sources including the Governments of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands as well as various relief agencies.Jason Rees (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees You are the only one opposing the split as well as the generous concession made by countless opposing voices that the information merge into an "Effects of Cyclones Kevin and Judy" article. You've wasted valuable Wikipedia resources prolonging this discussion just to screw the community and confuse readers interested in meteorology. You speak alone. Listen to the community not to your ego. Thanks

- Concerned anonymous reader 138.51.73.207 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to personally attack me then please at least get your facts straight and thoughly read through the discussions, as you will find that I am not the only editor who opposes the article being renamed to Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin. I maintain my personal view that Cyclones Judy and Kevin is the best name per Wikipedia's rules on article titles as it is the most reconisable, natural, common, concise and precise name that we have available to us which is what they want. I also strongly feel that there is no confusion to be had by readers interested in meteorology by naming this article, Cyclones Judy and Kevin, since the opening sentence disticntly states that they were two seperate tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose These are two storms but one impact and the media coverage treats this as one storm essentially. Unless this article could become too big, like +200KB, the article should stay like this. MarioJump83 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 08

Maybe if we keep the article on Cyclone Kevin, while we get rid of the article on Cyclone Judy. Ringo Asinal - Nocead12345 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nocead12345: I am personally opposed to any proposal that splits Judy/Kevin up into separate articles or gets rid of one or the other tropical cyclone, as both tropical cyclones caused significant impacts to Vanuatu as well as other Pacific Island Nations within 48 hours of each other. Yes this is a new direction for tropical cyclone articles but it is the best route for us to be able to respect our sources which combine the 2 tropical cyclones into one event and follow various rules on Wikipedia surrounding comprehensiveness.Jason Rees (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Page move

I have moved the page title to Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin, as this appears to be agreed. Despite causing similar, almost indistinguishable effects, they are not the same system. Considering how the term Cyclones X and Y have been used before, the previous name implies that they come from the same system. SolarisPenguin (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@SolarisPenguin: Reread the argument above please as I do not believe that it was agreed that the title of this article should be Effects_of_Cyclones_Judy_and_Kevin as I for one am against it per WP:Common Name and MOS:PRECISION. Yes you can argue that Cyclones X and Y should be reserved for tropical cyclones that are meteorologically connected, but I firmly believe that this would go against Wikipedia's rules on using the most common and precise name especially when our sources combine it into one event not two. I would also point out that Wikipedia:Consensus does not always mean what the majority wants and has to take into account the arguments that are presented which i suspect wasn't done here. Jason Rees (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And now both cyclone pages redirect back to this one. What was the point of this whole discussion? All this move did was make a mess of things. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Using "Cyclones Judy and Kevin" breaks from precision, in fact. This name is much better since it focuses on the effects rather than the storms themselves. SolarisPenguin (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@SolarisPenguin: The title Cyclones Judy and Kevin does not break from being precise, in fact it is the most precise and common name for the systems. You may not like the fact that the systens were combined into one article but it made the best sense and complied with Wikiepdias rules the best. As a result, I would urge you to revert the article back to Cyclones Judy and Kevin. Jason Rees (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Giving this article the name "Cyclones Judy and Kevin" breaks convention. These storms are NOT meteorologically related and should not be portrayed as such. "Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin" is much more precise and direct. Additionally, these news articles are not focusing on the storms themselves, are they? They're focusing on the effects of the storm. This name still implies that the effect of the storms are one event; but does not imply that the storms themselves are the same system. If we are going to break convention here, there should at least be a vote about it. All other storms that are talking about the combined effects of certain storms have been given names that are not "Cyclones X and Y". There is no precedent and no reason to not append the name "effects of" here, and as such, I will not be reverting the name change. SolarisPenguin (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly the title has now been restored to Judy/Kevin, which I suggest that it remains at for now, pending the results of a formal RFC on the article titles which I will be setting up, as I would like to clarify the rules when to merge articles on systems and what title to use. I personally believe that you are putting too much weight on people getting confused about being one system and not two even though the opening sentence says and will always say that they were two separate tropical cyclones. I will also note that we will need to use sources that focus on the storms themselves if we want to develop this article further, including reports from the Fiji Met Service and Vanuatu/Solomon Islands Governments. I will also state that I would like to merge Cyclones Eric/Nigel together as well and had a rough consensus to do so before Judy/Kevin came up.Jason Rees (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Its been about 10 days since you said this and to my knowledge no RFD has been made. When do you expect this to happen HavocPlayz (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Appologies I have been rather busy in real life over the last few days, it should be ready within the next few days, I just need to do a little bit more research.Jason Rees (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it again to Effects of Cyclones Judy and Kevin, as, once again, there's a clear consensus for this title. Infinity The Second (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Page move follow up

If we are going to split these, we should do it. The consensus is clearly to split them. 2600:4041:47C:400:ACB6:CE7B:9903:612F (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats strange since as @JCMLuis: put it on March 28, no consensus to split or move the article has formed yet and there has been no discussion of the split since then except to personally attack me. I also maintain my opposition to such a split since it would be redundant since the preparations, impact and aftermath are more or less the same for both cyclones and are being considered by the Governments of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands as two tropical cyclones but one event. As a result, I feel that Cyclones Judy and Kevin is the best name per Wikipedia's rules on article titles as it is the most recognizable, natural, common, concise and precise name that we have available to us which is what they want. I also strongly feel that there is no confusion to be had by readers interested in meteorology by naming this article, Cyclones Judy and Kevin, since the opening sentence distinctly states that they were two separate tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been many pro split users over previous discussions. And what happened to that "RFD" you mentioned? Was it a bit of a lie, or are you trying to get biased information. It's much more convenient to have these articles separated, what if someone just wants to know Judy's effects or Kevin's effects? Infinity The Second (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

And, as mentioned above, the 2020 Central Vietnam floods was with nine TCs, whilst this is just two systems. Infinity The Second (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity The Second: As has been demonstrated by other editors moving the article back, there is no consensus for a move or a split so the status quo remains. I would also comment that there have been numerous comments opposing the split for various reasons including Judy's MH not being notable, as well as my own view that we should follow what the Government of Vanuatu/Solomon Islands lead by combining the effects of Judy/Kevin into one disaster. Over the last few months, I have been busy with other things and the RFD I was going to do pushed to the back of mind and no it wasnt a bit of a lie or an attempt to get biased information. I also strongly disagree that its more convenient for our readers for there to be two or three articles that cover more or less the same content, when our reliable sources including the Governments of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu are as one disaster. We can also cover any individual effects that Judy and Kevin had if they are notable enough in this article. You may not like it but combining the two systems is the best option we have in my opinion, even though it's only two systems.Jason Rees (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I support a split and the consensus is clearly to do so and not to keep it so the fact that this is still being kept is mind boggling to me Cutlerys (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

9 people have supported this and 3 have opposed it there’s a clear consensus Cutlerys (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached just because there's more people on more side. It's based on argument strength. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 16:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly and argument strength is clearly stronger for splitting the article. Numbers support it, my analysis of each side's arguments show that splitting the articles maintains consistency to the format Wikipedia users have become accustomed to. Anonymous readers such as myself who do not have wikipedia accounts are insanely frustrated by the stubbornness of editors to keep the articles fused. Please listen to the other side. 2607:FEA8:86DD:7A00:355C:22EA:99F2:ABFE (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read through the discussion you will find that we have listened to people throughout the discussions, who do not like the fact that Judy and Kevin share an article despite reliable sources such as the Government of Vanuatu considering them to be two seperate tropical cyclones and one disaster. As a result of this, my personal opinon has not changed and I strongly feel that we would be doing our readers a disservice by splitting them into two articles for consistencys sake.Jason Rees (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well you clearly haven’t listened because if you did then this article would have been split a long ass time ago. 2600:1016:B073:30D6:F878:56F5:8A78:8C00 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey you violated WP:NPA there. Just wanted to let you know :) 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 15:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Page move decision

Do we have a decision on what to do with the page move situation. A previous user mentioned that a consensus is based on argument strength, but imo (just my opinion), it seems that the argument of splitting them is stronger. 2600:4041:47C:400:3CFA:8C81:AA75:3590 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There has never been consensus on separating the page from its current state, so this will likely be the status quo. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)