Talk:Hurricane Nate

Storm not lasting long, but a article already?

I am surprised that the storm only has been living for 2 days, and it already has a article. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS?! QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As usual, and as I have said many times this season including here, storm articles get split off if there's enough information. There is enough content that if merged back, Nate's season section would be too long. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is especially considering the fact that it is only a minimal Tropical Storm, but you'd expect a storm that killed 30+ people to have an article. Caesar Panda I (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

During October, storms (including Nate) are more likely to form close to land in the Caribbean rather than in the east Atlantic.

While more powerful storms are more likely to have articles, other factors such as how they impacted land and how much coverage they receive are relevant. Now that it is October (see image to the right) we can expect more storms like Nate, where they form much closer to land. As a result, Nate impacted land very early in his formation, prompting need for an article very quickly. There's already a lot of information available (and we could reasonably expect more very soon, though that's speculation), so an article format rather than a subsection format allows us to better organize this information. For more information about why/when we split articles, here's a subsection of the 17 season talk page that could hopefully answer any other questions you may have. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me! Just curious how it got a article so fast, but thanks for telling me how anyways. QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Tropical Storm Nate (2017) -> Tropical Storm Nate

The storm has killed at least 34 people, with the number expected to rise, and the fact that this is supposed to hit the Gulf Coast as a hurricane also warrants the move. Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not dramatically more significant than the 2005/11 editions as of right now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Get ready to name it Hurricane Nate Caesar Panda I (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Caesar Panda I (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ceasar Panda, I would agree soon it will be a hurricane per news on The Weather Channel and NOAA's prediction on Nate, also that many people missing I would think this needs to be moved. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the Storm. The Dvorak technique even says that it is 3.6-3.9 meaning that it could easily be a hurricane by 0300 UTC This is bad for the gulf. Caesar Panda I (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The gulf is battered here. There are 6 HURRICANES AND CINDY AFFECTING THE U.S THIS SEASON! Only 3 affected the east coast, the other 43battered the gulf and 1 about to batter the gulf again. I, myself got affected by one, Harvey. I personaly think that this decade may be the most active decade ever. Almost every year has atleast 1 Major Hurricane. I really feel bad for the gulf, and i hope that does not continue. Nate as hurricane is extremely bad for the gulf. QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Knowing Nate has rapidly intensified, it could be something estimate a storm akin to Gustav from 2008. Caesar Panda I (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I support simply making it "Hurricane Nate" as it's a particularly devastating storm. The death count attributed to 2017's Nate is many times more than 2005+2011 Nates combined, I think this warrants being the primary now. I base my support for this off of what is already known about the storm, but I'd also speculate that Nate could get retired; it's projected to impact the United States after further strengthening which makes it very possible to surpass $1B USD worth of damage. It's too early to know the latter of what I've said, but this storm seems to have tied the previous two "Nate" cyclones in strength and far surpassed them in damage to human life. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. We have no real evidence of greater notability at this point; while killing people can make something more relevant, it does not necessarily do so. Indeed, at this point, there isn't much to this article. The last two Hurricane Nates also killed people, and 2005's set some records as well. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we aren't supposed to speculate. If it ends up being the most noteworthy Hurricane Nate, so be it, but we have no idea if it will be yet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As I previously said; I base my support for this off of what is already known, not based off of my speculations. When comparing the meteorological history and aftermath of 05 Nate we find that it spent the overwhelming majority of its life very far from any land and peaking at the same category, while 11 Nate was only briefly a hurricane and spent most of its life including its landfall as a tropical storm; even at its peak, its wind speeds were lower than 2017's Nate. There was no Nate to surpass category 1, making the basis its impact. When determining the primary, it is beneficial to remember that while Wikipedia does not have "absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is", decisions are made by editors; this leaves us to remember our precedents for these articles. Hurricane Otto is the primary topic with its name; it followed a path impacting many of the same countries as Nate's, causing significant damage both structurally and to human life. Hurricane Nate (2017) has so far already caused far more casualties; that is not speculation but rather what we've already confirmed about the storm. While it helps that Otto was a major hurricane, Jose was also a major hurricane, but it is not the primary because it did minimal damage. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Otto was retired, so per long-standing project guidelines, it gets no year unless a name is retired twice (which has happened in the past). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment following the conversations from 7 October: the comments regarding the possibility of it causing at least one billion dollars worth of damage is no longer speculation now that its damage estimates are >$2B, so I continue my support for making this the primary. That being said, editors would be right to say that these are only early estimates and there is still a possibility that official numbers later on will differ; with that in mind if we are to reasonably avoid acting on damage estimates, the rising number of confirmed deaths shows this storm to be particularly devastating, especially when contrasted to what previous "Nate" storms caused. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We can move this article from "Hurricane Nate (2017)" to "Hurricane Nate" only if the name "Nate" is retired. As of now, I don't think that is likely, even with the estimated $2.52 billion dollar damage. Unless this storm's name is retired, we can't move the page, because there's no way of guaranteeing that there won't be more deadlier storms than this one, especially one that might actually get retired. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m going to bring this back up since the damages in Costa Rica jumped to $562 million per its TCR. That saying, even if it doesn’t get retired tomorrow (which now I think it will), this Nate seems to be the most notable Nate compared to 2005/11 because it was called the worst disaster in that country by the president IIRC, and I think it’s the costliest to hit Costa Rica on record. If Nate doesn’t get retired I think my facts alone lead towards this having the primary topic (we did a similar thing with Karl 2010 even tho it wasn’t retired, it got the primary topic due to the huge impacts in Veracruz). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Mario's point is the same as mine, considering that Karl of 2010 was not retired yet was still the primary topic. Although for whatever reason, Hurricane Gordon of 1994 is not the primary topic despite obviously being the most significant. This is about Nate though, and considering that it is by far the most significant (Costliest in Costa Rican history), it is pretty clearly the primary topic. Cooper 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gordon also had the 2006 version, which did a fair amount of impact though. As for Nate, it actually the worst hurricane in recent Costa Rica history (so post-1998?)? If so, then, I'd be more open to dropping the year but I'd have to give it some thought on my own time. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A side note on the 2006 Gordon: $3.8 million in Europe (as an extratropical system anyways) is not comparable to 1,122 fatalities in Haiti, plus it seems to be one of the most searched "G" named storms, far more than the other Gordons. Cooper 01:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Nate got retired, so Its time to give it the move. Cooper 11:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ayy one less argument over a move change now :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hooray! Peace! :3 Cooper 18:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

"Hurricane Nate was the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in the state of Mississippi since Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

I know next to nothing about hurricanes, but there is something really off about this opening sentence. It's telling us a trivial factoid instead of giving the most important details about the hurricane. Just the other day someone added Hurricane Nate to the 2017 article, under the day it made landfall in Mississippi, and gave that as the only part of its description (not the dozens of people killed in other countries). There has to be a better way to write the first sentence which isn't Mississippi-centric. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the referenced sentence is relevant to the article as a whole, but not important enough to be in the lede. —Theodore Kloba (☎) 16:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That statement is an outright lie (and also quite stupid). Just look at Hurricane Isaac (2012). That storm made landfall near New Orleans. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I was thinking about Louisiana, not Mississippi. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricanes

Could you explain how Hurricane Nate, Hurricane Otto, and Hurricane Gert got their names? Unitsdones11 (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Read Tropical cyclone naming. It should be mostly obvious, but the information is right there. You can also do additional research if you want. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

deathes reported in germany as well

according to nils carl aspenberg. trees crushed cars when nate struck germany. people died there.84.212.111.156 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nate's remnants never made it to Germany. You may be thinking of the extratropical storm that absorbed it instead. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Shipwreck

If anyone knows the name of the ship wrecked in Panama Bay, would they please add an entry to the List of shipwrecks in 2017? Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)