Wikipedia

Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 2

< Talk:Storm Daniel
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Vanderwaalforces in topic Request for Comment re: Stormy Daniels hatnote
Archive 1Archive 2

Source for Daniel being a tropical cyclone?

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments10 people in discussion

I noticed Daniel lacks a source that has it as a TC (No MCC does not count). Nor have i seen any news articles mention it being one or governmental agencies. However KNMI did reportedly mark it as a TC on surface maps but i myself am not aware if this was true. If you have a source, just kindly add it to the article but if one doesn't pop up, it shouldn't be mentioned as a tropical cyclone. HavocPlayz (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Technically I believe it won’t qualify as a TC since it occurred north of the Tropics. Borgenland (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thats not how it works. Some met students ik classify it as a TC/STC but no agency has called it anything other then a medicane or ETC thus far HavocPlayz (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Isn't a medicane a shortened form for a storm in that area? Borgenland (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe after this catastrophe, the WMO will finally get their act together and empower an agency to warn on these storms. There isn't any official agency to warn on them at this point. Numerous sources (including one already cited) stated it became a subtropical storm. Tbh they are right because an ETC isn't going to wrap a convective band like what was seen on satellite imagery. Noah, AATalk 14:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Here are several self-published sources by a scientist with some citations. Not a lot of them, though, so unsure if they make him reliable for this claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
It was most definetely tropical - warm core reached to the upper levels of the atmosphere as analysed per CIMSS, ASCAT showed 45kt winds with no associated fronts and a compact core with the strongest winds tied directly to the LLC under bursts of -60c tops. It defo had fully tropical characteristics. We do not have an official source for pretty much anything in the med since it's under like 20 agencies, but i'm almost certain sooner or later we'll get a report on its meteorological history Ikethecatto (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Some Meteorologists also called it Medicane on Twitter. So that makes it either a tropical or subtropical Storm. Which is also kind of obvious when you look at it on satellite images. But what i believe doesn´t matter.
So here is Özden Terli, German Meteorologist https://twitter.com/TerliWetter/status/1701481722687201317
The Swiss Agency for Meteorology https://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/ueber-uns/meteoschweiz-blog/de/2023/09/tief-daniel.html (though with wrongly translating Medicane into "strong mediterranean low")
Karsten Schwanke, German Meteorologist, also called it Tropical Storm https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1701680859856687557
Its not the best Proof, but good enough to continue calling it Tropical in the Article. One Day an Analysis of the Event will appear by a bigger Meteorological Service, and i have no doubt they will call it Tropical. 2A02:810B:1040:5230:D647:A14F:301B:C126 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
i agree with this, it was most certainly tropical. Ikethecatto (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
As you mentioned, KNMI did drop all fronts and mark Daniel as a TC on its weather maps and I do have the image. However, I can't seem to find the image on archive.org or the KNMI website and the image is copyrighted so we can't upload it :/ RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Daniel's convective structure is typical of a tropical storm (50kt T3.5 dvorak).. warm core, convection in the center, outflow band and no fronts. Yes, I doubted the subsequent weakening, but as it approached Libya the storm drew in dry, sand-laden air that inhibited convection. We are used to seeing classic TCs in tropical areas and loaded with moisture on all sides. Many persist in defining it as subtropical or tropical-like. This once again hinders consistent classification and resulting alarms. Mediterranean Tropical Storm #DANIEL is the tropical cyclone that has caused the most victims in the world in the last years. The Mediterranean Sea needs an consistent official cyclone agency. Years ago we discussed the fact that until a tropical cyclone has created a disaster over the Med. no one would take care of it. Now it has happened. I hope that the WMO will put some agency that tropical and subtropical cyclones in the Mediterranean sea are monitored and classified as consistently as in other basins of the globe. Since the 1990s, informal terms such as "Tlc" or "Medicane" have caused damage by making the population and also many scholars believe that these storms are similar, but not the same. It's wrong. Since tropical cyclones have been observed on Sst of 22C and outside the tropic (Alex2016, Vince2005, Grace2009, Pablo2019) it is clear that the tropical transitions that occur over the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean are exactly the same thing. But the population remains reluctant to talk about tropical cyclones and therefore prefers to define them as subtropical or hybrid. Sometimes they're really subtropical but other times they're really tropical (Leucosia1982, Callisto1983, Celeno1995, Cornelia1996, 01MRolf2011, 01MIanos2020, 01MDaniel2023 and others. Daniele Daniele italy (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
See Expert forum of Storm2k for Daniel's develop and tropical classification: https://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=123646&sid=9042e2ce14358254eac67c7ee580acf8&start=60 Daniele italy (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It needs to be emphasized, personal classifications of this system are not allowed. Wiki needs reliable sources which will come from agencies, news with clarification or quotes from weather agencies, and peer reviewed studies. Even as a degreed meteorologist I cannot classify this system as it violates original research policy. Same goes for those inserting own track maps of the system. The only track we have is by agencies tracking the system by their routine duties, which is why the UK met office track is currently posted. Until credible, none original research, material is posted or found, we cannot allow OR to be featured. Supportstorm (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Storm2k should not be mentioned here ever. That place is filled with, how do i put this? Weenies? Downcasters? Everything in-between? HavocPlayz (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
In reality, it is not that rare for a mid-latitude cyclone to enter tropical transition, transforming into a tropical or subtropical storm. Many tropical cyclones have non-tropical origins. Only in the Mediterranean do we find difficulty in classifying cyclones by proposing informal names such as "TLC" and "Medicane". Not being used to classifying these as tropical or subtropical cyclones like the rest of the globe, we prefer informality rather than globally coherent classifications. This Is wrong. Daniel for me Is a Tropical storm just before landfall over Libyan coast. This analysis by meteorologist Herinc David is precise and consistent: http://zivipotty.hu/daniel_202309.html?fbclid=IwAR0uQoHQrwDjY6eGeYadOoGRuLksp3eIWnAqMWtyFmpEzRCY1N8etF6axCw Daniele italy (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Daniele, as well as his sourcing of the article by Henric David, a well known meteorologist who worked with EUMETSAT due to his work on mediterranean TCs. 83.1.242.18 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I won't oppose the usage of the article as a source. Everything in it is well written. I gave it a glance over but will give it a good read later today after i finish school. HavocPlayz (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I hope you accept meteorologist Harinc David's analysis as the most plausible in existence. Furthermore, the term "Quasi" (quasi-tropical characteristics) must be removed. As already mentioned, "TLC" and "Medicane" are informal terms that do not fall within the coherent global classifications of cyclones (tropical or subtropical). In fact they are erroneously used only on Mediterranean cyclones. Adding the "Quasi" as the "like-almost'" makes no sense other than to further confuse. Storm Daniel takes on tropical characteristics (in addition, in my opinion, to becoming completely so). Daniele italy (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
imo once someone else agrees we can go through with changing it to tropical in the description, Harinc David is indeed very reputable Ikethecatto (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It is clear that Daniel is only called subtropical out of ignorance and insecurity. Every true expert sees Daniel as tropical before landfall. not subtropical.
Finally CIMSS provided ATMS data of [b]TROPICAL CYCLONE DANIEL[/b]: http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/atms/archive/2023/202390M.html
Metoffice TC analisys also declares Daniele a [b]tropical storm 01M-DANIEL[/b]: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/data/tropicalcyclone/tracks/nhem23/daniel.gif
Sab Noaa carried out two continuous analyzes over the Mediterranean sea in 2011 and 2016 which were then terminated due to lack of funds. During that period, tropical cyclones 01M (Rolf) and 90M (Trixie) were classified. No one had any doubts that these were tropical because they were classified by Noaa (also here on Wikipedia) and no one would have any doubts that Daniel is a TC if Sab Noaa still followed the Mediterranean. Daniele italy (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The CMISS and Metoffice do not hold weight here after having some. This is mainly due to them not being from an RSMC. Most likely, maintain the status quo on the page until a reputable research paper comes out discussing Daniel. Herinc David can be used once his findings are actually put into a research paper and it has support. Wikipedia rules. Love em or hate em HavocPlayz (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • after having some talking with friends more knowledgeable on wikipedia's rules
HavocPlayz (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment re: Stormy Daniels hatnote

Latest comment: 1 year ago46 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After a thorough examination of the discussions, it is evident that a consensus on whether to add a hatnote or implement a disambiguation page for Storm Daniel remains elusive. Participants' opinions are diverse and strongly held. Some argue in favour of a hatnote to prevent potential confusion, while others stand firmly against it due to various reasons, including humor, appropriateness, and the existence of a DAB page. Although the concept of creating a DAB page garnered support, it did not achieve a definitive consensus. The consensus on this matter is currently inconclusive and divided. Personally, after taking a look at here and here I see that, in the future, there might be a need for this. (non-admin closure)--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


Should a {{distinguish}} hatnote pointing to the Stormy Daniels BLP be added to this article? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes per WP:HATMISSPELL. This is entirely plausible as a typo/misnomer to an average reader, thus making the convenience and objective ease-of-use functions of the hatnote outweigh subjective concerns of being a "joke" (we've already established that the original addition of the hatnote was done in good faith). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:HATCONFUSE. There is a substantial risk for confusion between Stormy Daniels and Storm Daniel, and such hatnotes "are typically used when readers have misspelled their desired title". At least one user in the thread above stated that they arrived at this page via a misspelling, so it is reasonable to conclude that many, many more readers have done the same. Also consider that Wikipedians tend to be well read and better at spelling than the average reader. The hatnote would enable us to better serve everybody. Edge3 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, even with auto-complete and tiny spelling differences. No need to omit the hatnote just because it's neither appropriate nor confusing enough to you. Actually, I don't see inappropriateness in such distinction. Also, I don't think many readers will tell the difference between two topics without informing readers what the topics are about. --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No Humorous, but I highly doubt there's substantial risk for confusion between this storm and Stormy Daniels. Some1 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I see that there's a discussion about this above at Talk:Storm_Daniel#"not_to_be_confused_with_stormy_daniels". Notifying the participants in that discussion about this RfC: @Kuchesezik, Theodore Kloba, PaulRKil, Northern Moonlight, All in, HolyT, Moscow Mule, Drdpw, Vida0007, Spicemix, Daikido, Certes, and Woodensuperman: (did not ping those who already !voted above) Some1 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Keep. Also unlike other editors I don’t see where the humor is. NM 22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. We can't assume sophisticated knowledge of current affairs in readers, or faultless command of English. Spicemix (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
No it is my belief that it is a bad faith addition and that nothing warrants its inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. it can genuinely be confusing--Kimdime (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT : the separate DAB page that was just created is a convenient solution--Kimdime (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. It confused me at first even, there's no doubt in my mind this could confuse numerous others and hence needs to be distinguished. ChocolateAvian (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No, because a separate DAB page is both justified (more than two ambiguous subjects) and preferable (for tactfulness in such a sensitive death-related subject). fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not understanding the tactfulness argument, personally. Yes, her initial claim-to-fame was from doing porn, but her involvement in a major US political scandal has also significantly contributed to interest in her. We also have WP:NOTCENSORED to consider. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    But she's mentioned in the dab page, Storm Daniel (disambiguation); I don't understand the insistence with a dab hatnote. fgnievinski (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    You created that less than an hour ago. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    Does that suffice for speedy closing this debate now that it's moot? fgnievinski (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    No, I would say that creating the DAB page after the discussion started, then using it to oppose the proposal being discussed is disruptive, if anything. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    But what problem remains? fgnievinski (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    An unnecessary DAB page that could have all entries listed in a hatnote, which takes much less space and requires readers to make one less click to get where they want? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    A dab note which has attracted significant rejection previously? Talk:Storm_Daniel#"not_to_be_confused_with_stormy_daniels". There are reasonable objections on the ground of WP:OFFENSIVE. Even if someone doesn't understand the tact of not speaking of p*rn in an article about death. In the case of WP:TWOOTHER, a dabpage trumps dabnote, period. fgnievinski (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    This isn't a WP:TWOOTHER case, though (TWOOTHER concerns instances where a primary topic is ambiguous with two or more non-primary topics of that same name), but a WP:HATMISSPELL one. The porn actress is the primary topic for Stormy Daniels. It's just that "Storm Daniel," which has its own primary topic (the 2023 European windstorm/medicane), happens to be a plausible misnomer/typo. Period. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    Also you're misrepresenting TWOOTHER, which says "...it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page...". I don't believe an additional {{distinguish}} below the link to other storms named Daniel requires too much text. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    In your opinion, would the new DAB page you just created also moot (at least in part) the current RFD discussion? Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    I support the hatnote to the new DAB page.[1] Thanks for creating it, fgnievinski. Some1 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No because its widely inappropriate and people who get cofnused always have the option of retyping their search request in the appropriate bar anyway. Daikido (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Because Storm Daniel has 2½ other meanings (2019 storm, list of storms, debatably Ms Daniels), a simple hatnote to the new dab is a better solution, despite procedural objections to creating and linking it during this RfC. Certes (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Agree with others the dab page is a better solution given there are several other meanings. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Problem solved with the dab page hatnote. Which might also be a good target for the contentious redirects. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No Per my comments far above. WP:SIMILAR does not apply and WP:HATCONFUSE is a real stretch. Two independent and widely separated typographical errors (each based on a significant difference in pronunciation) are required to confuse the two, and the two topics are in vastly different fields. I also agree with the arguments about having too many hatnotes; the supposed confusion with Stormy Daniels seems less likely than the others. Holy (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No because of the dab note that has already been created. Had that not existed, I might have voted for yes (it might be considered as a WP:HATMISSPELL case), although like what I said in the previous discussion above, I would be okay if it is not going to be included (even if I initially made the original Stormy Daniels hatnote in good faith), out of respect for the still growing number of victims. Vida0007 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No. The dab page is a preferable solution here as others have mentioned. CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No per DAB arguments above and policy reasons stated by Holy. From a non-policy perspective, IMHO it's just silly. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Needs some hatnote the primary source of confusion is the public figure directly. A disambig page is a valid alternative. However, as others have noted there's a lot of censorship, I don't like it, and bluntly stated assumptions of bad faith going around that should probably be reflected on. Wikipedia hatnotes are about ease of navigation and should be placed regarding user ease at a low bar. - Darker Dreams (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    I do agree that any arguments for removal of the hatnote based purely on "it's inappropriate" doesn't stand up to WP:NOTCENSORED. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • No - redirect only single word typos to respective page with hatnote redirect notice and also link to DAB page, leave only DAB on both articles. i'll post this here too, i don't know how to crosslink it: it was not my implication that the page/persons is a joke. the concept of forced typo or childish noting and immature pointing out of inappropriate adult topic phrases or words for humor and fooling around (laughing among friends hiding behind a cupped hand), i.e.: 69, 420, "do it", etc. has no place there, be it for clarification or not. i don't think many of the readers would have a grasp of what a redirect and failsafe/safe-net typo for foreigner convenience and only perceive it as a bad out-of-place joke. i also don't believe there would be any form of censorship as it was suggested and it's unreasonable to brand this as such. it's only a rational and simple note to keep in mind that people looking up the disaster (perhaps including those who may have had close ones fall victim to it) might find it insensitive. the only point i was making was that graphic adult entertainment (seen as indecent in half the world) does not go well with a natural disaster. i think it's fair to say more respect is due to all the victims and their families than to the appropriate spelling of the name of a single person (whoever they may be) or to those who would make an inconvenient typo they could get around in just a few extra seconds. i believe that the wording/spelling is clear enough and i support the editors who say the scenario where someone would seek one topic while fully typing in the title of the other is highly unlikely and it does not warrant an additional reminder that there is some chance that it could be a typo after the page contents have already been displayed and can be recognized at a glance. in short: being sensible to where being respectful is more helpful than the conveniencing of a possible but highly unlikely grammatical error by linking to an inappropriate article (even more so, as mentioned - at the beginning of the page) is what the consensus should be.
kuchesezik 22:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: the choice to list Stormy Daniels as an adult entertainer is just one option, and almost certainly the least of her actual notability. Her substantial notability derives from how she has figured into US American political scandal over the last several years and she could easily be identified by that trait by people reasonably searching for her without risking titillation. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storm_Daniel/Archive_2&oldid=1181750500"