Talk:Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal

Let's settle this...

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus for Option 3, i.e. move the article to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. Generally, an argument for a combined article is stronger, since effects of two consecutive storms are hard to discern. On the other hand, the new name would acknowledge that NHS and other meteorological organizations treat and name the storms separately, thus avoiding appearance of OR. No such user (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

@JoeMT615, ABC paulista, LightandDark2000, KN2731, Hurricanehink, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, Aegeou2, CodingCyclone, Doge1941, OrzonYT, Hurricaneboy23, DachshundLover82, Gummycow, CycloneFootball71, AveryTheComrade, JavaHurricane, and Chicdat: Which option is better for this article in your opinion? The split to TS Amanda and TS Cristobal mentioned above by Joe? Or the second RM to move the page to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal (keep one article due to the impact) and treat them as separate storms in the article? Please indicate either split or move below. Noah^Talk 20:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 – One article renamed to "Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal" – Per my reasoning in the above discussion and those of others as well. The storms are linked and essentially the same (regardless of how the NHC officially classifies them and regardless of whether or not you see a regeneration event as "the same cyclone"). The impacts have a bunch of overlaps in Central America, the hardest-hit region, so trying to fully separate them out so that we can develop high-quality articles will be difficult with a two-article approach. If having two articles makes getting them to GA/FA status more difficult, then I say that we should just stick with one-article. Quality matters, and quality should take precedent here, rather than our own feelings on this subject. And honestly, the NHC's official classification doesn't prevent us from sticking with one article – we can do that, as long as we make it clear that the NHC officially classifies this weather system as two separate storms (and as long as we provide their reasoning for doing so). And given the building consensus towards the third option in the discussion above, I feel that this is the option we should go with. We need to resolve this issue once and for all, and right now, a single, retitled article appears to be our best bet for a solution. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  BTW, this discussion should not be closed until a clear consensus is generated. And just to be clear, if this discussion (one that actually covers all of our options) ends up with "no consensus", the status quo will remain (i.e. this article will stay as it is), because that will be a very clear indication that as a community, we cannot make up our minds on how to deal with this issue. It is my hope that it will not come to this, but just in case it does, I need to make the implications very clear. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option Three (Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal) – The NHC emailed Noah and said that Cristobal is treated as a different cyclone. This means that they should be treated as different storms. Therefore, calling it a crossover is not correct and would be OR. However, the impacts from Amanda and Cristobal are hard to discern, so creating two different articles would result in a lot of forking. Because of these reasons, I believe that the best option is to use this name, and put the two in one article to address both issues raised. (I will not be open to debating this any further.) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support re-division I'll be honest, I still support shifting back to two articles. While I completely understand why LightandDark2000 merged these storms for purposes of convenience, I believe that if Amanda and Cristobal are two different storms, they should not share one article. Noah's email only further confirmed my belief that they should remain separate. Further, keeping this as Amanda-Cristobal I believe is OR since not a single one of our sources nor the NHC calls this Amanda-Cristobal, so if division should fail, we should change this article's name to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. That's non-negotiable. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support option three/move - I personally feel this one would be better due to the related impact as long as we treat them as two separate storms. I disagree with the treatment of them as the same storm per the NHC and other RSs. Noah^Talk 22:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option Three (Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal) – Amanda did not cross over as a tropical cyclone, so the title shouldn't treat it as such, thus support. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 22:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support redivision - Amanda and Cristobal are separate storms and should be treated as so even if they’re impacts overlap. We don’t have an article named "Hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel" even though their impacts overlapped or "Tropical Storms Trudy and Hanna. The NHC email and TCR clearly states that Tropical Storms Amanda and Cristobal were two separate systems. These articles should be split, this is a complete violation of Wikipedia policies because it is original research. Also, Amanda only affected Central America but Cristobal went on to pass through the United States and into Canada, so they have somewhat separate impacts. I believe this should have been split long ago.DachshundLover82 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option Three for all the reasons already stated by other people. AveryTheComrade (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• So we're just going to keep doing this until you get the result you want, right? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support re-division, since they were two distinct storms per NHC, even if they affected the same area and shared the damage. If the damage done is that notable, that a third article, focusing almost solely on the damage that Central America and Mexico suffered, is warranted. Two articles focusing on the storms and one focusing on the damage. ABC paulista (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 2, split into separate articles per what JoeMT615, DachshundLover82, ABC paulista said, my reasoning on Talk:Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal‎ #Amanda/Cristobal Split above, and the email that Hurricane Noah received. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 00:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is. I know they're not technically the same exact tropical storm, but they're close enough. Titles should be precise, natural, easy to recognize. The storms shared the same MH and impacts, so I don't think the Cristobal article should be split off, which I think smacks of US-centrism. If this topic were to ever become a GA, then it would need to have a lot of information for Central America and Mexico. If Cristobal became a GA, I suspect that the Mexico section might not be as thoroughly researched, and Amanda might take a long time to become a GA, because a lot of the sources will be in Spanish, and that takes a bit more work to understand/cite/deal with. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 3 Are we seriously still talking about this? I understand the technicalities, but trying to separate what one did in Central America from what the other did in Central America is going to be IMPOSSIBLE so I understand the merger. What name it should be and the how the article should be structured is something I really don't care about. Just make up your mind already please and come up with a consensus/compromise. Thank you.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 3 (Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal) The NHC insists they weren't the same storm and it did not complete the crossover while remaining a tropical storm/depression. – 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Our main concern is to build an encyclopedia that is verifiable and reliable. To follow the NHC's opinion is clearly the way forward imo. And so far as impacts go, I can think of quite a few storm pairs which struck in quick succession, as a result of which damage was hard to tell apart for such pairs, though of course this brace also has a meteorological history. 'Twill be hard to differentiate for parts of Central America, but I think it is possible using some thought, for instance by looking at the time of the reports, the location, etc. It is complex, but we've done it before too, and I do not see why we cannot do it here again. I know it's an OSE argument, but it might sometimes be worth reminding ourselves that we've done it earlier as well, so it is not an impossible task as some contend above. JavaHurricane 01:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 3 — Honestly, I've been a bit iffy on this whole scenario and I kinda feel like its been blown a bit out of proportion. Nonetheless, I think that referring to the storm as "Amanda–Cristobal" is a bit strange, like thats the storm's actual designation (no news sources or any source for that matter uses that name) when its clearly not. I wouldn't personally disagree with a split overall but "Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal" works best IMO to give the reader insight on both significant storms which are clearly related to each other without stepping into "WP:OR territory" (although Wikipedia doesn't have to listen to NHC's vagueness) instead of implying they're totally separate (when they're NOT, Cristobal wouldn't exist without Amanda but not a crossover storm necessarily either) by slapping a note that says "Oh, check out this OTHER article which is definitely not related to this one but they both were responsible for the same exact impacts in Central America ..." on the top with a See also link, for example. Thats all I have to say. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hurricane Noah, I believe the consensus is emerging as keeping the article but re-naming. While I still believe they should be re-separated and that we CAN show a difference in effects in Central America, I don't want to bludgeon the process. For everyone, I think this has carried on too long, let's leave the consensus at Option 2; I still request two different infoboxes, however. JoeMT615 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 3 - I hate to be involved but we have to settle in. Per CodingCyclone, basically. MarioJump83! 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 (move) Well I have been thinking about it lately, but I think this option would be better since the NHC never mentioned the storm as Amanda–Cristobal. Basically what @CodingCyclone and ChessEric explained. Although it did not survive crossover, it did have significant impact in Central America and should have the main information in one article. From: 🌀Aegeou2🌀 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (to two different articles) The NHC said they were separate storms I still trust the NHC. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 – One article renamed to "Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal" – Though the impacts of Amanda and Cristobal are intertwined, the two were separate systems with individual meteorological histories. Additionally, while I understand the reasoning behind having one article for the two storms due to the one-two-punch they inflicted upon Central America, the current title is inaccurate and misleading. Drdpw (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 – I agree with this, I want to split it fully but I don't want to trouble the editors. Doge1941 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Comment - @Doge1941:, you don’t have to worry about troubling other editors, you can choose to split it fully. This is what these discussions are for.DachshundLover82 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Comment - Oh ok but I support Option 3 either way but Thanks! Doge1941 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3. While most reliable sources separate Amanda and Cristobal as two tropical cyclones, it is also a fact that most reliable sources do not differentiate between Amanda and Cristobal's impacts in Central America and Mexico beyond initial reports of Amanda's impacts (which can be considered to be outdated). As such, having one article to cover these two systems would be more beneficial in adequately summarizing their impacts. For the title, Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal would be the most accurate and precise name, per Hurricaneboy23. I would note that JavaHurricane's approach to separating the impacts is essentially original research, since it involves synthesis of the source material to reach conclusions they do not explicitly state. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - JavaHurricane's comprise wouldn’t be original research since most articles should already give timings and location of events, because Amanda died out after May 31, anything occurring after that is likely due to Cristobal.DachshundLover82 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2021 (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.

What I want will happen. Split the articles due to the obvious reason already. Villian087 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of Jrdyhrberg. Noah^Talk 00:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Page move request

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.

---

After seeing articles like Hurricane Cesar–Douglas and Hurricane Irene–Olivia with the two names being separated by a hyphen instead of the word and. So I say this should be changed to Tropical storm Amanda-Cristobal instead of Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. 103.96.106.94 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Both of the other articles that you mentioned are titled that way because the systems had a continuous track, meaning that it never dissipated or became post tropical after landfall, and as such, both of these had a different name because they entered a different basin, and so naming criteria at the time required the system to receive a new name, even if it survived the crossover. however, Amanda and Cristobal weren't continuous in the crossover, with Amanda's circulation falling apart before it crossed into the Atlantic, and as such it received a new name. Since both systems are related but not exactly the same, the article is labeled as such here, and makes much more sense, as naming it the other way would be OR and would be going against what reliable sources say. Please see the various merge discussions regarding this above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above discussions. While I understand what you're getting at (and the precedent for most other articles on crossover systems), this storm is a unique case in which the article covers basically two phases in which the storm degenerated to a remnant low in one basin, before regenerating and getting a new name in another (per NHC protocols on cross-basin regenerations). The other articles you referenced are ones in which the system remained a tropical cyclone the entire time. As discussed above, the best title is the current one: "Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal". While it may seem long and a little weird, it is the best option available to us. I see no reason to change this now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2021 (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.