Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 4

261 or 153?
Make up your mind. Pick a reliable source and stick with it. I’m tired of seeing it change. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's 153. People are adding outdated information regarding Guatemala. Initial reports stated 150 deaths but this included missing people. The latest I've found is 42 confirmed fatalities and 100+ missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. It's now 44 dead in Guatemala. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020
there are now 30 named storms.... soon to be 31. Big man bry (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? there's only 29, you may want to recount. Gex4pls (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ – At the present time there are only 29 named storms. Also, next time, please present your edit request in the form "please change X to Y". Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they mean 30 tropical depressions, because TD 10 didn’t strengthen, but we use tropical storms. They are also refering to Invest 98L soon to be Tropical Depression 31(I hope). Will welcome user immediately. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of subsequently x 20, use of Laura x 16
None of this is needed. Every time I make them carefully re-worded some editor says I don't speak English. It's daft! Let me help this article out.- Adam37 Talk  22:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? I never said that. I just said the grammar was off.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tbh the grammar was a bit off, as I said on your talk page. Laura is a storm name, and 16x isn't too much. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Theta to timeline
On the timeline picture right after the lead, Theta isn't on there. I don't know how to add it, so could someone else please do it? Thank you. 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 04:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone already did it... you can close this now. 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 04:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirty-One
We are now at our 31st tropical cyclone in the Atlantic this year and I have made a draft for it anybody wants to check it out. It is under the name “Draft:Tropical Depression Thirty-One (2020)”. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Epsilon article??
Look, I know this discussion has already been talked about and I know most people were against the article, but I personally think Epsilon deserves at least some kind of article. And if this Non-notable storm gets an article than why not Epsilon? reasons I think it should. Now look, I know that 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 mean nothing about having an article but make the storm a little more notable in my opinion. I also know that the rest is and can be said in the season article. I also don't want to argue with anyone here and if most people oppose an article I will not mention this again. Cyclonetracker (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It went under rapid intensification where you would least expect.
 * 2) Farthest east storm to go under rapid intensification this late in the year.
 * 3)  Pretty much surprised everyone who tracked it.
 * 4) Made it to an unusually high latitude.
 * 5)  Have you seen the photos from inside the eye?? They would look good in an article in my opinion.
 * 6) Had a similar IR look to Dorian.
 * 7) Was a major hurricane.
 * 8) Was a pretty decent sized storm.
 * 9) Was a Greek storm


 * @Cyclonetracker, while I appreciate the idea, I think that most of these records are trivial anyway, and I believe there was discussion on 2010's page about merging Shary's article. Also, Epsilon wasn't necessarily a big meteorological phenomenon, generally speaking, since Paulette and Teddy already bypassed the islands. If Epsilon's precursor or remnant had any extra affect, I think the article would be worth it, but otherwise I'd say Oppose. Watch for what @Destroyeraa, @Weatherman27, @WesternAtlanticCentral, and @Chicdat say, they've seen this kind of stuff before and could give you better advice than I could.JoeMT615 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good-faith suggestion, but no for multiple reasons stated on Draft talk:Hurricane Epsilon (2020). ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye out!


 * For reference, here's last month's now-archived discussion: Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 3. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the fairly recent deletion discussion we had on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose-2020 is bloated season, but if you want an Epsilon article, find a source about the damage. Besides, Pablo 2019 doesn't have an article. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Epsilon's life story is adequately told in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Many reasons have already been stated on the deletion discussion and other talk pages, I think there is enough information on the 2020_Atlantic_hurricane_season section.  ARegularWisconsinite🌀  (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There should be some compelling notability to make an article for a fish storm, which I don't really see here. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I will say what I did in the last discussion. The notability is very tenuous at best. Basically the strongest point for its notability ended up being a factor of halves of months, which is just getting too technical unless its something more tangible then a combination of speed of intensification AND location AND perhaps also strength. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose This system had very minor impacts to Bermuda and no where else. Even if it did intensify relatively far north, was a surprise to anyone who tracked it, these things are very trivial. Hurricane Pablo in 2019 was the same way. It was surprising that it strengthened north of the Azores, at a high latitude, and it was the furthest east hurricane on record, that storm didn't get an article, because all of those facts could be fit into its section. As with any system that does not get an article, any oddity or notable aspects can be put into the summary of the system on the main article. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!).  01:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While the reasons listed do make it somewhat notable, it was still a fish storm that barely impacted land. Hurricane  Icy &#124; Talk  🍂 05:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hyperactive
Now can we put up hyperactive in the lead? Also, Eta-wise, we should put "deadly" (I weep the 400 people that were murdered by these terrible tropical cyclones and the thousands more who lost their homes). 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I thought the death toll was 235! --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's now 250+, I think Chicdat means everyone who passed away from all of the 2020 atlantic hurricanes combined. ~ARay10 ) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, I will still oppose this being added for now. If the NHC officially declares this, then fine. Otherwise it’s WP: OR. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * HurricaneTracker495 Are you referring to the death toll as being original research? The NHC isn't responsible for tracking fatalities of a tropical cyclone during the season. They only mention fatalities in the TCR of a particular storm. Finding reliable news sources, like media outlets from other countries--or even in the US--regarding the death toll of a particular storm is, in fact, not original research. Gum  balls  678   talk  19:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * no the hyperactivity. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyperactivity is defined based on ACE values. My understanding is that, after a rather contentious discussion, it was decided that ACE calculations fall under WP:CALC. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. The NHC won't use the term "hyperactive" because NOAA doesn't. The highest threshold for a season's activity is "extremely active". I don't actually know where hyperactive came about. Gum  balls  678   talk  20:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 10+ hurricanes, 5+ major hurricanes and an ACE of 153+. This season is hyperactive, but post season reanalysis could change that(like if Epsilon is found to have only been cat 2). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It could, but we'd have to wait for the actual analysis to make that change before downgrading. That's looking less likely since we will likely have Theta and possibly Iota before long. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 10+ hurricanes, 5+ major hurricanes and an ACE of 153+. This season is hyperactive, but post season reanalysis could change that(like if Epsilon is found to have only been cat 2). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyperactive is an unofficial term not used by either the NHC or NOAA. But it can be equated to NOAA's "extremely active", which has the same thresholds as Wikipedia does for hyperactivity in terms of ACE. With that, though, a season does not have to meet all three requirements in order to be hyperactive. It has to have an ACE of 153 and then at least either 9 hurricanes or 5 major hurricanes. I think in order to avoid confusion, we just leave the season as "extremely active" rather than hyperactive. Gum  balls  678   talk  20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In that case we should use "extremely active" as "hyperactive" would indeed appear to be OR. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9? I thought it was 10 ! But hyperactive yeah is OR. Extremely active does not equal hyperactive however. Many seasons(like last year) were extremely active and nowhere near hyperactive.
 * Hyperactive and extremely active do "equate" each other. 2019 meets the qualifications of "above average" but not "extremely active". The only years in the 2010s that actually meet extremely active threshold are 2010 and 2017. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely active means that they were a lot of tropical storms, while hyperactivity means hat it has a high ACE. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyperactive isn't the real term, as it was said above, extremely active and hyperactive are the same term, one is the actual scientific term though. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 17:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove hyperactivity from all Wikipedia pages?
I suggest that we remove this from all Wikipedia pages due to WP: OR. Adding a RFC for anyone’s thoughts. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Change "hyperactive" to "extremely active" per the definitions from the Climate Prediction Center. The page on Accumulated cyclone energy defines a hyperactive season as one where ACE exceeds 152.5*10-4 kt2, which is the same definition that the source uses for an "extremely active" season. We should change the terminology to the one that has a source. We already reached a conclusion on the use of ACE in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * S-u-p-p-o-r-t and make it clear that "extremely active" has completely replaced "hyperactive". I'll start now. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons above (i.e. TornadoLGS) and per the consistency needed throughout the articles. As a sidenote, TornadoLGS, did you forget to sign? Tfess up?or down? 13:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the signature got lost when I rephrased my comment. May have been an edit conflict somewhere in there, too. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 *  Comment -Pinging, , , , , , , and -you can’t come to consensus with just the 3 of you. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support hyperactive is unofficial, something that Force Thirteen would use. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Like Destroyeraa said, hyperactive is unofficial. NOAA doesn't use and neither does the NHC. We shouldn't use a term they don't use Gum  balls  678   talk  15:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely support Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source, it is only natural that we should use the reliable and actual term, per Noaa. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 15:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Follow the CPC lead and use Extremely active. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  22:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I won’t WP: SNOW close, but this is definitely gonna succeed. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Also, ping didn't work but as always, I find myself looking through more people's edit histories. I like   hurricanes  02:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment-Pinging and -won't SNOW close. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning support I actually liked the term, but seeing that it is not an official term, I had been removing it from the hurricane pages I had seen it on. I like that we all came up with the solution without arguing like mad men, so I support this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Eta needs condensing
That one section is like article size of some smaller articles(Zeta 2005). Can we condense eta’s size in this article? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Destroyeraa did so already.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But I don’t think he did enough. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys can help. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * except I don know what to condense and what to keep. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eta paragraph is too long. Info is lengthy after when Eta left Cuba and started impacting Florida. Some of the bits such as dry air, unfavourable atmospheric conditions (very long description), or the various other causes of Eta's behaviour I think should be cut, but I'll bet others won't be too happy about it...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm done trimming the paragraph. Can't tell if it still requires more trimming, or it was enough...it's now 406 words long.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
I am requesting an edit where it says that is is the fifth consecutive season that was above average since 2016; the word fifth is misspelled, thats all! GoldGamer32 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅–The edit was made by ARegularWisconsinite.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Umm... Can u please fix the forecast map for Iota SputtyTheSputnik (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect opening paragraph
Opening paragraph says 2020 is most active year, but this is not true yet. We now have more named systems than any other year, but 2005 still beats 2020 in total systems formed by one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7f10:88c6:364c:893a:4867 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have modified the sentence to state: "" Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Tied with 2005 needs changing and 2020 is No Longer Tied as to why it is the most active year. NotYourFriend 420 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tropical depressions are still tropical systems. You guys can try justifying it by only including named storms all you want, doesn't change the face that while 2020 has more named storms than any other season, it is still behind 2005 in total systems. Thank you to the user who changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7f10:8d16:7f2c:6238:c0ce (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now it is the most active in terms of total systems formed! LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, now it is tied with 2005. Both years now have 31 systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7F10:503C:54CA:5024:5798 (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained clearly to you that seasons are ranked by named storms, not TD's. We do not need to go into those details in the opening sentence (MOS:LEAD). Please stop bringing this up.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Force Thirteen
It seems, this year, we've seen an increase more edits from well-meaning but misinformed editors changing the intensities of hurricanes to the estimates from Force Thirteen. It's starting to become a nuisance. I think we should put a hidden note next to intensities along the lines of This wind speed comes from official reports of the National Hurricane Center, not Force Thirteen. It should probably only go on articles where multiple Force Thirteen fans have made such edits (such as Hurricane Lorenzo (2019), though (see WP:BEAN). While I was tempted to be bold on this, I wanted to test the waters and see if others might implement this differently. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We've tried hidden notes before, but many people ignore them and change things anyway. ForceThirteen is just a nuisance in general. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed they are, on 's talk page, we have tried to get the point across that Force 13 is not a reliable source for information to a user, but they can't seem to get that through their head, and they are being quite the nuisance, but yeah, these F13 edits are getting tiresome, even if they are in good-faith. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please protect my talk page (semi)? The editor is really annoying. Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that editor will be a problem, since they've agreed not to add F13's content, even if they disagree. But we do have a lot of people who either follow F13 and not the NHC, or don't realize that the NHC's info trumps F13's. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Force Thirteen ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is true, I thought it was worth mentioning as this section was created right after that discussion took place. I have a strong feeling that it is both, based on what I have seen from editors, and also from other sites besides Wikipedia. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Force Thirteen always makes bad estimates and isn’t a reliable source. I do watch them often but I have to agree it shouldn’t be used for Wikipedia. We need to do much more action on these kinds of edits. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said; I created a project page: WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Force Thirteen. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to alter User:Jasper Deng/No Force 13 to link there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Question on number of storms
2005 Atlantic hurricane season says "28 tropical or subtropical storms recorded" (+3 depressions = 31). Currently, this article says "30 tropical or subtropical cyclones", but are we not at 29 tropical or subtropical + 2 depressions (TD10 and TD31)? Chris857 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see this article just changed to say 31. But still, the 2020 and 2005 articles seem inconsistent in this regard. Chris857 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Use depressions over storms
I think that now we are tied with 2005 as the most active. Comment below, but I think we should use depressions over storms. Because all tropical storms are depressions and it’s the true amount of systems. We had two depressions that didn’t develop as of this writing(TD 10 and TD 31.) 2005 had 3(TD 10, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and SD 22). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Firstly, tropical depressions historically were not quality-controlled in the same way as tropical storms. Secondly, the meteorological community at large, including particularly the NHC, rank seasons by named storm count. And finally, per WP:DUE we must rank storms in accordance with reliable sources. No one ranks it by TD count.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * why should we say “the record of systems with winds over 39mph”(which is what we do)? Why not just use depressions. It would make 1979 one of the most active seasons on record. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For reasons I've already explained in the previous comment. Listen.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Yeah, reliable sources use storms. Not sure why, tbh. Going to bed now. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Record early formations regarding Theta and Thirty-One
I believe that even though Theta (and probably Thirty-One soon, into Iota) are the first time there are the twenty-ninth and thirtieth named storms in the Atlantic, they shouldn't be included in the table under seasonal summary, since they didn't break any records with regard to being the earliest 29th and 30th named storms, since there were never any others. However, if this isn't popular, could we at least agree to put a note that says they are the earliest by virtue of being the only ones? JoeMT615 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose That was the way the list was on the record page before 2020 tied 2005. Records were set here because no other storm exist to break that record. The removal isn't necessary imo.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @ChessEric, even if their formation is the first of its kind, that means they didn't break any record for earliest formation if there weren't any others. The NHC even stopped mentioning it in their forecast discussions because of this. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with ChessEric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonetracker (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree too. Even if they are the only 29th and (soon to be) 30th named storms, they still broke the record. Hurricane  Icy &#124; Talk  🍂 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @HurricaneIcy, I understand your point, but there was no record to break with regard to earliest 29th named storm if there wasn't any before them. I think adding some sort of note would suffice.
 * Comment I get what JoeMT615 may be proposing. All the subsequent storms after Eta would have "None" on the second column. It would just read None, None, None and fill up space with no additional info to show. So continuing like it would make the table bigger than it has to.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support we should still add how early it formed in the table if 31 becomes Iota. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @HurricaneTracker495, actually yeah, making a one column with a note affixed to each marking "Earliest formation by virtue of being the first of that formation number" or something like that would work.JoeMT615 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting a note at the bottom of the table below Eta's listing telling the dates Theta and subsequent storms formed would suffice.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you meant oppose?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I meant support. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included because it is a record breaking formation even if there isn't any competition SputtyTheSputnik (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @SputtyTheSputnik, it is not record-breaking if there is no record to break for earliest 29th or 30th named storm, since there haven't been that many ever before. Plus, the record that they hold as first 29th and 30th named storms are different than earliest 29th or 30th.JoeMT615 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was BOLD and changed the "none" in columns 3 and 4 for Theta and Iota to state: ', as per a suggestion above. I am presently neutral''' about removing these two storms from the table. If they are removed, then they should also be removed from the "Earliest formation records by storm number" table at List of Atlantic hurricane records. Drdpw (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I like 's edit in that both Theta and Iota are the earliest forming by virtue of being the only ones to be designated at that number. While I understand the sentiment around not wanting to include them in the table, it doesn't really make sense to not include them, because they still are the earliest, simply by virtue of being the only ones to be the 29th and 30th named storms. The table was created to show the formation/naming dates of the storms that set the records, which both Theta and Iota have. Gum  balls  678   talk  00:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Drdpw and @Gumballs678; I saw on the List of Atlantic hurricane records that the earliest storms were included even if they were the first of their kind, like the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta of 2005 before 2020. So yes, I think we can bring this issue to a close, thanks again@Drdpw for your note in the table, I believe it was more efficient than simply putting "none" for every storm after Eta.JoeMT615 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Tied with 2010 and 1926
I wouldn't be upset if this is WP: OR, but we are tied with 2010 and 1926 for the most amount of hurricanes that peaked at a category 4 strength at 4, with Laura, Teddy, Delta and then Eta. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, 1999 featured five Category 4 hurricanes, and I'm sure there are more seasons like that. Plus, I feel that is trivial. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, 1999 and 2005 had 5. I feel like iota could become eta 2.0 though, which in that case it would. Hurricane Icy &#124; Talk  🍂 23:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, it'll be trivial. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Iota article?
Should we make an article for Iota? Based on current estimates (though it may be too soon to tell), it's supposed to impact areas recovering from Eta as a major hurricane. I think that alone makes it notable, but what do you guys think? Gex4pls (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, I advocate waiting to move it into mainspace until impacts are known. A draft already exists. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see Iota getting an article as the NHC predicts a major hurricane, though we shall have to see.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone already asked this question.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Correction: that person made the article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should make it now, as it hasn't affected land yet, but seeing as it is forecast to hit central america as a major hurricane just after Eta, we should continue working on the draft. Hurricane  Icy &#124; Talk  🍂 00:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No need for an article yet, though a draft can be made for now. WP:CRYSTALBALL so article is not warranted immediately.  Java Hurricane  15:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020
In seasonal summary, change the internal link from Iota to Tropical Storm Iota 219.78.191.60 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tfess up?or down? 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request November 13, 2020
Fix the forecast map thingy SputtyTheSputnik (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please specify what about it needs "fixing." TornadoLGS (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please make it more clear. Also, there is no edit request parameter. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they mean the storm track map at the top of the page.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they meant the forecast maps for Theta and Iota. In that case can upload the latest versions at Commons (just click on the image and then on the button "more information" on the right bottom corner once the image loads, you will go to the Commons page of the file, where a new image version can be uploaded.)  Java  Hurricane  15:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bit confused. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020 (2)
Tropical Storm Iota image is outdated. Use this image to update it. That's all I request. File:C1HurricaneIota1 20 PM.png FuturPDUCTIONS (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * waiting for some one more experienced to do it. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Image is nominated for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:C1HurricaneIota1_20_PM.png. Dylsss(talk contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ per above. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020
Iota is now stringer than Eta 83.54.168.227 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Eta has 923MB. Iota has 925MB. Strongest storm is based on pressure, not wind. Rmagnan (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not in a "Change X to Y" format, and not true. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020 (2)
My edit request is to change the dates of the hurricanes 173.90.240.241 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there something specific you're looking to change? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please use it in a "X to Y" format. Provide a WP: Reliable source if possible. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Theta
I have made a draft for Theta if anybody wants to edit it. It is located at Draft:Subtropical Storm Theta (2020) and is nearly finished. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, though I don't think it's necessary to have the year, since it is the only storm of that name. Also,  anyone who creates a draft should communicate that they have done so, as two separate drafts were created for this storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS, yeah since Floridaball already created the draft without my knowing I had to do that. However, I will be able to remove the year since its now Tropical Storm Theta. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Theta needs to make some kind of an impact for it to have an article, records can easily be mentioned in a sentence or two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they're creating the draft now, in the event that it does bring impacts to at least the Azores. Can't say for certain if that will happen, yet. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Theta will stay well south of the Azores; though as of this morning (Wednesday), Madeira is within the cone for early-Saturday. Given that Theta's impact there will likely amount to less than the impact Epsilon recently had on Bermuda, the likelihood that this storm will warrant an article is very slim. Drdpw (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep! I agree, but they probably created the draft assuming that it may bring impacts to the Azores. We'll have to keep watching, but I agree with you on that Theta may end up along the same road as Epsilon. Gum  balls  678   talk  18:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is the Geostationary image for Theta not changeable? Can't we change that to the newest satellite imagery for 11-13? If it is there for a reason please let me know as I am uncertain at this point. If there is no reason to keep it shouldn't we update the image to the latest available?SingingZach (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing, I myself would rather not mess with those kind of things because usually one person handles them pretty well and I trust them.  ARegularWisconsinite🌀  (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Theta article?
Now that Theta’s dead, we should really make up our minds about whether or not we should have an article. Simply put Support for an article or Oppose against an article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC) *Oppose Extremely little impact. Forgot to log in but its too late because otherwise edit would be deleted. This is HurricaneTracker495. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Drdpw (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Was thinking there might be some impact in the Madeira Islands (idk if I said it right) but now that Theta is dead, and very little impact was reported, I don't think it needs an article. I like   hurricanes  00:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tfess up?or down? 02:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There isn't enough content to justify an article for this fish storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It broke a huge record...then did absolutely nothing. No article needed.01:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)ChessEric (talk · contribs)
 * Oppose Theta reminds me of ol' Wilfred. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough. extremely little impact. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Iota needs to be updated on the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season wiki
Iota’s coordinates and pressure needs to have the numbers on the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season wiki changed to the new numbers from the update that was at 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on the National Hurricane Center page. MANORVOanonymous (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Go to that wiki, then. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana
Louisiana saw 5 tropical storms make landfall. Laura caused $14 billion and Zeta caused around $2 billion. Over 40 people died. Delta in Louisiana was probably close to $4 billion. Cristobal also caused $150 million in the state. Anyone's thoughts on making Effects of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season in Louisiana? --HurricaneTracker495 School Chromebook (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose; good idea, but effects of certain tropical cyclones specifically on an area are made for that single cyclone. In addition, there isn't an article to my knowledge of 2005's effects on a certain area. Good-faith suggestion, but I wouldn't encourage it.JoeMT615 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Laura already has its own article for it, so I'm not sure if we should merge that (if we can) into and do you suggestions, or just make separate articles for all of them. I like   hurricanes  20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we keep Laura in Louisiana and combine them. All the cyclones did at least $20 billion. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not standard procedure. We could do away with a Zeta article for Louisiana, though nothing more. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I actually like the idea, and it has been done before. (See Effects of the 2009 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines and Effects of the 2013 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines) However, we are talking about three hurricane strikes along with a bunch of minor effects from other systems. A good idea nonetheless, but too much of a hassle imo.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Delta and Zeta can be covered in the aftermath of Laura’s LA subarticle. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There is almost no chance that a request for splitting this page will ever be passed. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

An editnotice request, please
I really think that it should be more clear that edit requests should be in a "change X to Y" format. The one near the bottom: the IP who wants to "change the dates of the hurricanes" wanted to do so in good faith. If only they'd said, "Please change the naming date of Eta from October 31 to November 1, it might have easily passed. Since I'm not a page mover (I'd like to be), I want an editnotice to be created for this page, saying "'''If you are requesting an edit, please put it in a "change X to Y" format, like "Update Hurricane Iota from Category 2 to Category 1". Simply saying "Update Hurricane Iota" and blank edit requests will be declined.'''" Because I don't like seeing IPs being harrased; they're human too. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not bitey at all, they choose to do that so we must tell them no. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Words matter though. Word choice is important. It is our job to tell them no, but we can't just tell them "no, go to this place instead". If they don't know the format then say, "Not done, because of x. Y must be followed for us to carry out your request", or something like that. Like Chicdat, they are human too. Gum  balls  678   talk  17:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes however we can’t be welcoming to people who are making nonsense requests. We need to tell them it’s nonsense. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but again, words matter. There are ways you can tell someone their request is nonsensical by being polite about it. Just because it's a nonsensical request doesn't mean we need to be impolite about it. Also, that isn't what we're talking about here. I am in favor of Chicdat's request because it's become clear that not every IP knows the proper format. If we make it clearer to them or explain it to them in the request if the request isn't done correctly, then either they'll learn how to do it correctly next time, or the next IP that has a request can now know the correct format. Gum  balls  678   talk  17:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You also have to consider if the user knows it's nonsense or not. If they don't, 'telling them it's nonsense' becomes biting. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, add what is nonsense to the thing, then. The editnotice.
 * Not using X to Y
 * "Update Iota's intensity".
 * --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Support I feel it is a good request. Also, I have seen users who have accounts, not IPs, make the mistake of not knowing how to format a request. I think that it would be helpful for new users as well, so that they know how to formally ask for something to be changed. (That goes for New IP users as well.) 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Support It comes across as quite bitey, if IPs have the good faith to ask to improve the wiki we should enable that to both encourage editing and minimise the time we spend telling people their request is formatted wrong. ThePelicanThing (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Most Active Hurricane Season on Record"... in terms of named storms only
Thought this should be discussed here first before making a change, but the opening statement, "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, featuring tropical cyclone formation at a record-breaking rate" kinda irks me a bit because it really is *only* the most active in sheer **number of named storms**. I really think the generally agreed best indicator of how active a season is among hurricane season experts, is the ACE (Accumulated cyclone energy), since it also puts into play how strong and long-lasting a tropical system ends up being, not just if it receives a name or not.

Many of the named storms early in the 2020 season were weak and short-lived though, so even if this season passed 2005 in the number of named storms, 2005 can still be called a more active season in ACE since it had less weak and short lived storms than 2020. It's the same reason why the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is considered one of the least active hurricane seasons on record, even on the article itself, despite the number of named storms actually being above average; almost all of the storms were weak and short-lived that year.

With this, I think we should clarify that this 2020 hurricane season isn't quite set in stone as the most active of all time, given that 2005 still leads in ACE. We should instead rephrase the opening phrase to "The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is the most active Atlantic hurricane season in terms of named storms..." and also mention somewhere in the intro the season's ranking in terms of ACE (right now, I believe it's 6th), and that will clarify things more.

SpookyTheGhost (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read the points here and I'm convinced that the change should not be made. Especially convincing was that ACE is measured differently by different organizations which I was not aware of earlier, and that would indeed not give enough clarity. Perhaps somewhere ACE could be mentioned later somewhere further down, as one user mentioned, but the opening statement will not be changed. SpookyTheGhost (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to this idea. TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, so a few things:
 * 1) Activity is based on named storms, not ACE. This has been mentioned several times
 * 2) 2005 was not the season with the highest ACE, but it was still considered the most active hurricane season
 * 3) This is not to say, however, that we should not mention ACE in the opening paragraph - on the contraray, it very much should be included. Just further down... NotYourFriend 420 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as a side note, can we make it clear in an obvious location that activity is measured by the number of tropical storms? There have been many people who seem to think otherwise. NotYourFriend 420 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe in code so people don’t say it, but not when reading. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose. This was the most active season, since activity IS NOT MEASURED BY ACE!! In fact, if you really want to make ACE supreme, then 1933 is the most active season, which it is not. I am absolutely against doing this at all, and you know why? Because all the sources say 2020 is the most active, and they don't even mention ACE. I'll give you a few: this one, this one, this one, and this disussion from THE NHC, our most reliable source, clearly states that 2020 is the most active season on record. And I have to say, no mention of ACE in ANY OF THOSE SOURCES. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, activity has always been measured by the number of tropical cyclones. ACE is not agreed upon, because it's measured differently by different organizations and is not always indicative of a season's overall activity. Take this season for example, the ACE is between 175-180 units and it has the most amount of named storms on record. 2005 had slightly less activity and has the 2nd highest amount. ACE measures a named storm's duration and intensity. Because of this, I am opposed. Gum balls  678   talk  14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am not going to give the long explanation I planned because my WiFi came out. To shorten it up, ACE is important and can determine if it's extremely active. But also, we use tropical storms. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Per Chicdat and Gumballs678. Ace is not exactly clear, and as Gumballs said above, it is measured differently within different organizations. For example, CSU measures Ace differently than say how people on Wikipedia calculate it. There is just not enough clarity to use Ace, hence why we use tropical storms and above as an indicator for how active a season is. This is not just on Wikipedia either, as many other organizations, including the NHC as Chicdat said above, have found this season to have been the most active. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat, Edits)  15:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The overwhelming view in reliable sources, and therefore what we have to present here (see WP:DUE), is that "most active" is measured by number of named storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy and grammar issue(s) with statement about record pace
@Drdpw: A previous as well as the current version of the entry contains the sentence:

"The season's third named storm and all named storms from the fifth onwards have formed on an earlier date in the year than any other season since reliable records began in 1851."

I see the following issues with this sentence.


 * 1) The ellipsis in the sentence can be cancelled by adding the part(s) that was/were left out. Doing so, I arrive at: "The season's third named storm and all named storms from the fifth onwards have formed on an earlier date in the year than any other season has formed since reliable records began in 1851." So, if my understanding of the ellipsis is correct, starting dates of named storms are compared with starting dates of seasons. Obviously, that was not intended by the author. Here is why I think the sentence has an accuracy and grammar issue.
 * If, however, my interpretation of the ellipsis is different from the (obviously) intended meaning (i.e. to compare starting dates of named storms with starting dates of named storms with like rank in the sequence of storms in their respective seasons), arguably the sentence is ambiguous, which is also an accuracy and grammar issue.

For these reasons I recently changed the sentence into:

"In no other season since reliable records began in 1851 have the named storms at rank three and ranks five and onwards in the sequence formed on earlier dates and times than in 2020."

and added:

"{intended to improve accuracy and grammar}"

as a brief explanation, hoping that my intention with as well as the nature of the replacement was clear.

Maybe this brief explanation was not clear enough, since the replacement was reverted by Drdpw. Now his/her revert was accompanied by "Undid revision 989268956 by Redav (talk) of an improvement". I wonder: why would s/he revert something s/he calls an improvement?

I invite Drdpw's explanation, since I fail to understand his/her motives and aims. As things stand, I am inclined to re-instate my edit, but I am open to convincing arguments before I would do so. Thanks!Redav (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the issue of comparing storms to seasons can be resolved with the addition of one word.


 * "The season's third named storm and all named storms from the fifth onwards have formed on an earlier date in the year than in any other season since reliable records began in 1851."


 * For two reasons, I agree with (what I presume was) Drdpw's intended edit summary that your choice of wording was not an improvement. First, the use of the word "rank" is ambiguous in this instance; it's unclear by what criteria the storms are being ranked (intensity, deaths, damage, duration, somebody's arbitrary criteria for "worst"). Some media outlets may also use "rank" in reference to Saffir-Simpson scale categories. We do, in fact, have records for the earliest-forming Category 3 hurricane and so on. Second, "In no other season...have the named storms...formed on an earlier date," carries a slightly different meaning from "all named storms...have formed on an earlier date," as the former wording allows for records tied while the latter does not. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So the phrase "in the sequence" may not have been helpful enough in avoiding the possible kinds of ambiguity that you mentioned and one of which (the Saffir-Simpson scale) I already anticipated at the time of editing. Your second argument is certainly accurate and true; thanks! Nevertheless I still wonder whether:


 * 1) the clause after "than" would not need an explicit grammatical subject of its own to be grammatical [For this I may have to study articles as referred to on e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240418247_Subject_ellipsis_in_English.];
 * 2) for making clear the contrast a phrase like "on an earlier date in this season / in 2020 than in any other season" would be preferable (where I also changed "year" for "season", which may help novices who may be uncertain about the differences and similarities between calendar years and hurricane seasons in the Atlantic),


 * or whether at least the sentence would improve from such changes. In my view, the original sentence is not a beauty by far, and not at all easily understandable, even to me who feels very much at home with the subject. But that is not an objective criterion, I know.


 * Maybe the/my problem lies in the fact that a correct grammatical reading of the current version implies that, among other things, the third named storm of 2020 has formed on an earlier date in 2020 than it (i.e. the same third named storm of 2020) has formed in any another year, which is - of course - nonsense. I think that explains objectively why I prefer to point out as well as contrast:


 * 1) on the one hand: the third named storm of 2020;
 * 2) on the other hand: the third named storm of any other season,


 * and similar for all storms at ranks five and onwards in the sequences of their respective seasons. To me, the current version of the sentence in the entry seems off.Redav (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems you have found a satisfactory solution. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep! The word "corresponding" has taken a while to pop up in this non-native English speaker.Redav (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With due respect, your version was unnecessarily clunky; concision is important. Even if you introduce "corresponding", this does not clear up anything for the reader. If we want to clarify this sentence, the proper course of action is to add a parenthetical note along the lines of "(for example, the twelfth storm, Laura, was named at an earlier date in the year than the twelfth named storm of any other season)".--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * With due respect: first of all, you might wish to check again whose version you have been commenting on and editing, since it was no longer mine; secondly, your comments are easily understood as delivering undue judgment ("the proper course of action") and possibly even belittling ("We are not the Simple English Wikipedia.") [The fact that I am not a native speaker of English does not mean I need to use Simple English, even if there would be no shame in that. Most of us actually intend to add improvements, even if we may not always be successful in all aspects.]; third, if I would copy such a style, I would say that your version was unnecessarily unorthographic, as its ends in two consecutive full stops, but I do not like using such a style; fourth, a parenthetical note would expand the text, possibly coming close to making it clunky; fifth, at least a couple of users hold a different opinion as to what is a proper course of action, since they either added, or were satisfied with, or left in place, the word "corresponding"; sixth, I invite you to add a parenthetical note to the sentence if you prefer so and think it helps clarify, or else - maybe even better - suggest an even more readable choice of words. [I would certainly be open to that if it could resemble even more closely the more mathematically inspired style of: "The season's n'th storm (for n∈ℕ, n=3 and n≥5) formed on an earlier date in the year than the n'th one in any other season [...]."]Redav (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The storm track map
We need to update the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season map. There were more paths for Hurricane Eta and Tropical Storm Theta.  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think someone is responsible for making those, I don't know how to but Theta is still active.  ARegularWisconsinite🌀  (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is someone who specific updates it about once a week I think. If you go into the photos' history, you can see how that works.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure this has already been talked about recently but I'm a little confused about the the storm track map. Iota, per the NHC advisories, was a Cat 5 all the way up until about 40 minutes to an hour before landfall, so I'm a little confused why it shows only one dot at Cat 5 strength and so far off the coast? Aircraft data showed Cat 5 winds all the way up until landfall except that last hour where it was slightly downgraded do was there an error somewhere or what? Can someone explain. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The track map is based on Best Track data. The intensity may differ from the intensity in advisories, since there has been some time for reanalysis. I know some of the later advisories indicated that the estimate of category 5 intensity may have been generous, so it appears that the portion of the track a few hours before landfall got downgraded. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aircraft data indicated that, but only one actual advisory was at Cat 5 strength. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Every advisory from the 13th full advisory to the 14th intermediate advisory indicated Category 5 intensity. However, the operational best track does contain some retroactive changes which are reflected in the track map. In particular, the intensities at 18 UTC on November 16 and 0 UTC on November 17 were retroactively lowered from 140 knots (Category 5) to (respectively) 135 and 130 knots (Category 4). Also, if anything, aircraft data showed that the NHC was being too generous after the 13th full advisory.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess thats how revisions work so. I still find it odd that the winds were lowered during the time it looked best on visible and infrared satellite, to me. Winds clearly went down right before landfall as the eye shrunk and an eyewall replacement cycle would've likely ensued had it stayed over water, so no surprise there. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. At 12 UTC, Iota looked its most symmetric (but the sun had hardly come up yet, so visual imagery might not look as great). Reconnaissance found a clear decreasing trend in the measured winds thereafter and by the final approach to landfall, it was clear that an eyewall replacement cycle indeed was going on. Anyways, this conversation is off-topic on this talk page per WP:NOTAFORUM.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Should TS Cristobal be in season lede?
I want to avoid an edit war, especially as I want Destroyeraa to have rollback. But I think Cristobal should be in the season lede.

Please do not just say “support” or “oppose”. This is NOT a vote, and it will do little to do consensus. The better you explain your support or oppose, the more it affects the consensus. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 15 people died making it the 5th deadliest.
 * 2) It did $665 million, making it the 6th costliest(until iota damage comes out)
 * 3) It is retireableworthy, and I hope it’s retired if they can’t retire Delta, Zeta, Eta and Iota.


 * Yes but in general I still have problems with the lead. There's too many records listed and not nearly enough impact IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * good point. However, Cristobal may be retired and if it is it should be in the lede, especially considering Hanna is in the lede despite only killing 5. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, any storm that brought impacts to land (i.e. causing damage and fatalities) should be mentioned in the lead. It doesn't have to be too long, just something simple. Touch on its impacts in Central America, since that's where most of the storm's impacts were in, and then briefly mention its landfall and impacts in Louisiana. Probably no more than one or two sentences. Gum  balls  678   talk  19:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added Cristobal in the lead. Thanks. However, not every landfalling storm should be in the lede. Storms like Fay are regular and have a mention in the SS. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair. But cristobal :-( is a really bad storm. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Post-season improvements
Now that the season is finally winding down (my imaginary season had twenty-two tropical storms, twelve hurricanes, and five major hurricanes, and I thought that was overestimating), we should consider revamping the season article. Any ideas on how we could? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat If I'm being honest, we haven't seen any post-season (December) storms in SEVEN YEARS!!! But just because 2020 is the most active season on record, doesn't mean we could see a post-season storm; that's not really how it works, but who knows, we could see one or two more storms before New Year's 2021. But back to the topic, I thought of taking the season map, and making the six-hour points just slightly smaller than they were. I've already make the lead section a little more concise and more understandable to read. Iseriously (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait-first of all, we're not quite at the end. Around this point in time we saw two hurricanes. Hurricane Otto of 2016, and Tropical Storm Sebastien of 2019. Those weren't post season. And there's a disturbance with a 20% chance of developing in the North Atlantic. So, we shall wait and see. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you have to use the ping template, or else he won't be notified, also he won't be online until around 11:00 UTC tomorrow. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait per HurricaneTracker495's reasons (also, the disturbance, as of 7:00 a.m. EST on 21 November 2020, is 10% and not 20%). Tfess up?or down? 15:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ** Makes sense, waters aren't quite 26°C! :-) --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Chicdat is aware the season is still ongoing. He just its winding down, which is true. I think the one section that needs to be cleaned up immensely, is the seasonal summary. Yes, its gonna be long with 30 named storms, but its also meant to be a summary. We don't need an in depth summary of every storm, because that's what their respective storm sections are for.  Gum  balls  678   talk  15:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. The third paragraph of the seasonal summary definitely needs a major rewrite. TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The biggest thing we can do is to integrate the TCR's once they come out, and remove any refs that the TCR can replace. That'll cut down on the page size. I moved the Covid paragraph down to season summary, so the lead shouldn't be too long now. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

409 total
It's just 409 total, not 439. 89.113.197.26 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a request, please put it as "Please change x to y" format or something similar. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  17:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I counted to 409 too. I changed it in the article. Where did the 439 come from?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Originally there were 30 deaths from Mexico attributed to Iota. However, the source was confusing and the deaths were actually from Eta. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Zeta Section Elaboration
Hi! I think we need to add some detail on how Hurricane Zeta affected the east coast of the United States as a tropical storm briefly in the section. HurricaneGeek (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What more can be said; specifically, what more do you think needs to be said? Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, Zeta did cause flooding and deaths while on the east coast, so maybe we can explain about that. HurricaneGeek (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Elaboration will bloat the article, and readers will probably click on the article if they want more information. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the brief paragraph as it now exists, mention is made of: the landslide & resulting deaths in Jamaica; the flooding and damage to infrastructure in the Yucatan; the deaths, flooding, power outages, and early voting disruptions across the Southeastern U.S.; plus the snow in New England. That about covers the topic. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tying with 2003
The season would officially end on November 30. But I see a subtropical disturbance, where it was forming at the same point as Alpha in September. Although I feel a lot of theory and curiosity, why? Is it possible, that a late storm would form in December, that would tie with 2003? Not because of the number of storms formed in the month, but it would form a before and after the official limits of the season (for example, Ana was formed on April 21, 2003 and Peter dissipated on December 11, 2003. In compared to 2020, which Arthur formed on May 16, along with Bertha 11 days later and would dissipate a tropical or subtropical storm that would be Kappa or so it would leave unnamed after the post-analysis in Q1 or Q2 2021). Because the NHC are monitoring two subtropical disturbances each other. --МОДОКАУ 19:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting; this season certainly has been long, and its post-season may indeed be as busy as its pre-season. Drdpw (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be the first season since 2003 if either disturbance becomes Kappa that there was pre-season and post-season activity. 2013 is the most recent season with post-season activity, but we can revisit this if one of the disturbances becomes a (sub)tropical storm. Gum  balls  678   talk  20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's the first season since 2007, because Subtropical Storm Andrea formed on May 10 and Tropical Storm Olga dissipated on December 11. But Andrea is subtropical so it may not count. Also, the chance of both not devloping is somewhat high-56%. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be speculating about what is going to happen on Wiki, especially since 90L has been named Clement by the Spanish Met Service.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what does that have to do with anything? Also, there's 99L. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that this thread does not belong on Wiki, as this talk page is not a forum for speculating about what's going to happen in the season.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I closed the discussion. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit war on 'Official end of the season'
Pinging   So I see several edit warring on this literally within the past hour on when the season actually ends. Please refer to this as I was previously one of those editors who was involved in the same situation four years ago. When it says the season ends on 11/30, it ends at the end of that date, therefore declaring the end by 00Z of December 1 is better. However what I find ridiculous here is that the edit war seemed to happen literally minutes before the official end, which is pointless. Kind regards and I hope everyone have a good holiday. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving
I increased to 30 days, as because in UTC it's 12:20 AM on December 1(despite being November 30 at 7:20 PM EST)(roughly). I will be happy to revert to 14 if we see any storms forming. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Past Tense
The season should not be switched to past tense until the last TWO or STWO has been issued by the NHC this year. The season was switched to present tense as soon as Arthur was put on the TWO so why should it be switched to past tense while there is still an Area of Interest being monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryTheComrade (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The season is officially over on the 30th, which was yesterday. And the NHC issued their final STWO regarding Invest 90L today, which isn't expected to become subtropical anymore. So either way, the season is over. We can place back the "season ongoing" message if there is a December storm. JoeMT615 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wind speeds changing
Why have the winds on zeta dropped and alpha increased? And Hanna Nhc monthly report shows no changes Stop changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, I have corrected the wind-speeds. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)|
 * see https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/tws_atl_latest.gif; NHC revised the wind speeds Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't see it at first, my apologies. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  18:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all good, happens to all of us! Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the monthly summary which contradicts the image that was published at the same time? Noah Talk 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Send the link please. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Noah Talk 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If they were published at the same time, why are they different? Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the question indeed... but we shouldn't be edit warring over this. Generally, we wait until the tropical cyclone reports are released for storms before making changes so any unsolved questions aren't leading to disputes like this. I have requested full protection for the involved pages because of the edit warring so we can discuss this. If you guys continue, you may end up blocked. To be honest, we should leave the advisory intensities here until each TCR is released. Noah Talk 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking also. Also, I don't feel that I was edit warring, I changed the wind-speeds and then I was reverted, but I did not respond, I left the article as it was. I would also like to point out that I have not edit this article in a while, so when I saw the original talk page comment about the wind-speeds being changed, I hadn't realized that there was edit warring occurring on the main page, and as such, I changed the winds to the original advisory speeds, because I thought that we were supposed to wait until the TCR's came out. My apologies. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, then for now let's just use https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATWSAT.shtml until the individual TCRs come in. Everyone agree? Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)



Sorry for the inconvenient edits, and the spark of a potential edit war. It still puzzles me that the two monthly summaries are different. -Shift674- (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; it is very interesting that the NHC publish two summaries that are not in agreement. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The biggest takeaway that needs to be remembered is that the advisories still override the best-track until the TCR arrives for each individual storm, as Destroyeraa said on his talk page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  18:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that the "default" rule for establishing tropical cyclone intensities is to follow the summaries given by the NHC. Also, any mistakes on the map could easily be typos, as they have done before on Tropical Cyclone Discussions, and if you look closely, Alpha is list as "T" as opposed to "SS", but it is shown as a subtropical storm on the map. So this could just be preliminary data. Finally, the last changes will be made when all the TCRs are released, because the NHC usually adjusts the intensities a bit up or down. For all we know, Zeta could've been a major hurricane and Ten could've briefly been a tropical storm. So we should hold off on intensity edits until we get those reports. JoeMT615 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Hanna's windspeeds were 90mph, not 85mph Zeta's winds speeds were 110mph, not 105mph KansasChaser12 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it is hotly contested, however, i will agree that the sources back it. please obtain consensus before making an edit request though. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * These edits were made in good faith; the NHC published two summaries (https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATWSAT.shtml and https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb_latest/tws_atl_latest.gif), and the two are not in agreement, but we have agreed to use the first one. Also, these edits were not made by IPs, so a semi-protected edit request will do nothing, and these were all made in good faith. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. If assistance is needed to reach a consensus, please see WP:DR. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Use 1st summary or 2nd?
Let's stop edit warring and all come to consensus together. And do not just say 1 or 2, give a reason. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the first summary Ok. I am in support of using the first one because the second one (the map) seems to be preliminary data, as said by other editors in the talk page of Destroyeraa. Also, some editors have also said that the second one uses data in 6-hour-intervals, and doesn't include intermediate advisories, which would lower the wind speed of some storms. The first one seems to show the data from all of the advisories and update advisories, and we have agreed to use the advisories until the TCRs come out in the above discussion, so it would go in line with that as well. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support 1st Summary The November monthly summary not only recaps that month but looks back to the hurricane season a bit as well, and any new changes to previous storm's intensities are displayed there, so I think it should be used over the map, which the NHC has specifically said is preliminary data. I appreciate people trying to help and that it's confusing that the NHC released contradictory intensities, but the summaries should always be the go-to if TCRs haven't been released. I think now that the season is over and with the absence of any STWOs at present, we should shift our attention to editing the article to make sure it meets "B" or possibly "Good Article" status, and should do the same with Eastern Pacific. Again, intensities will be updated as TCRs are released. JoeMT615 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You guys have made some very good points, and knowing that the map IS preliminary, it may not reflect on the tropical cyclone reports. -Shift674- (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support 1st Summary

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Hanna's winds were 90mph, not 85mph and Zeta's were 110mph instead of 105mph. Also, why was Alpha's speeds changed? It should be 50mph. KansasChaser12 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed it per the monthly summary graphic, but the edits will be reverted shortly, if not already, due to contradicting summaries. (Also, please use a edit request in a "X to Y" format) -Shift674- (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See above section. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Close the Conversation
I believe we have the emerging consensus to only change windspeeds according to the NHC's monthly summaries until the TCR's are released. Could we close this conversation?JoeMT615 (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. We could close this conversation. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 15:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Predictions of tropical activity" table
Perhaps it is best to address this somewhere but this specific article, but I had looked at the table entitled "Predictions of tropical activity" and was a bit put off by the way the "Record high activity" was displayed. I had figured that it was best to either limit these numbers to previous records, or make a note next to the 30 names storms saying that this season held the record. However, looking back, it appears there have been a lot of inconsistencies in these tables (namely in the appropriate range for the record numbers) from the 2000's back. Essentially my hope was to come to a consensus on the formats for these boxes so that there aren't so many stylistic inconsistencies between them. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The boxes have the same general style of seasonal averages, records, and outlooks by prediction agencies, like TSR and the NHC. I really think the only edit that could need to be made would be to add a note next to the 30 named storms and say that the record was broken during this season, the previous record heading into 2020 was 28 in 2005. JoeMT615 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Image
Where should I put this Image? 🌀 Hurr icane Geek 🌀 {talk ⋅ contribs}} 15:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, if a majority of people want this image, that's fine, but I don't think its necessary to add considering how many storms have articles and that the only viable place to put it is in the seasonal summary, which is already way more bloated than the usual summaries because of all the storms to discuss and the two images and table of record formations. Thank you for asking about it though. JoeMT615 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why ask this question after you put the image into the article? Had you asked beforehand whether or not to add the image, I would have pointed out that there is already a lot of informative material in that section, that the "group photo" is not particularly informative, and that each subsection has an individual storm image. Also, though I reverted your edit adding the image to the summary section, if a consensus emerges supporting its restoration, then "make it so." Drdpw (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't ask after I put it, I asked first and then I made up my mind. Second of all, it makes sense to put it in the Season Summary section, since it shows all the storms. 🌀 Hurr icane Geek 🌀 {talk ⋅ contribs}} 16:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was in error about the timing, my apologies. While I agree with you that the logical place to put the image would be in the seasonal summary, the fact remains that there are multiple reasons for not adding it to the article. Drdpw (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Premature end of season
Hi:

I know that the NHC has reverted to its off season display but I think it is too early to put the end of the 2020 season on Novembre 18th, considering what happened in 2005. Water temperatures in the Caribbean sea and in Tropical Atlantic are still pretty warm.

Pierre cb (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, just to be clear because other people have been trying to dispute the ending. Since we are writing an encyclopedic page here, we MUST put the end of the season as November 18th, the day the last system dissipated. We cannot put season ongoing just because we think something else will happen. I agree it is possible another storm could form, but until then, the end of the season should be put as NOVEMBER 18TH. That is when Iota, the last storm, dissipated. We need to put that has the last system dissipated date unless another storms forms, which hasn't happened yet. Thank you for asking about it. JoeMT615 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not disputing that the last cyclone to date is Iota and that the official end of season by the NHC is passed but what is your reference for this "must"? Why "Currently active" left until the 31st of December is such a big mistake? Pierre cb (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Pierre cb, Sorry if I'm coming off as hostile. The reason I say must is because the official definition of the season is June 1 to November 30. Putting a message saying 'season ongoing' is therefore an absolute falsehood. The season may only be extended if another storm forms this month. As of now, it is over. Leaving currently active when no storms are active is also a direct contradiction. So, the reason I say must is because we need to follow our references, the biggest of which is the NHC, and respect Wikipedia's policies, and this could be counted as WP:Crystalball. JoeMT615 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we’ll get another system so I agree with ending it as November 18. There is high wind shear and dry air in the main development region and outside that, it’s too cold. I don’t think anything will form till 12/17-by that point it’s too cold. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic site, so we follow what the NHC and other agencies say. Since the season ended on November 30th, and the last system dissipated on the 18th of November, then it is only natural to say when that storm died, as JoeMT615 said above. It is WP:Crystalball to leave it open simply because there is a possibility that a system might form. The season has ended, so we will leave it at that for now. Also, since everyone has acknowledged the official end of the season, leaving it as "ongoing" would provide lots of confusion, and more edit warring. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  16:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wikipedia should not be so quick to assume that it's done and should still say "Season ongoing" and it's really a WP: CRYSTAL violation either way but less of one to say season ongoing and on January 1 we can change it so why not just wait? Also, Invest 90L is dead and there is no Invest 91L, in case anyone is curious. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After every season has ended, the dissipation date of the final tropical cyclone is added to show when the season ended, and if there happens to be an off-season storm, we reopen it as "ongoing." Even if this season has been extremely active, the article should be treated the same way as every article before it has. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  19:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * okay, but its not crystal ball putting the end of the season as November 18 following the official end on Nov 30, because that is in fact, the official end. If things form in the post season, then we'll add "season ongoing" again. We can't wait until January 1 because the season doesn't end on January 1, it ends on November 30 because that's the agreed upon date  by the meteorological community.   Gum  balls  678   talk  19:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Yes, it ends on November 30 but Hurricane Epsilon (2005) Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) Tropical Storm Olga (2007) Tropical Storm Odette (2003) upon others. The technical season isn't ongoing but we should wait because something could develop, maybe if new information comes out that says nothing tropical development can occur I guess we can revert back but it's too early to call. We should not say a season ends on November 18, even if the hurricane season ends November 30, until we can confirm for sure there won't be another system, on January 1. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, seasons have offseason storms, but like TornadoLGS & HurricaneCovid stated below, reliable sources have said that the season is over. Another storm may form, but another one may not. Officially, the season is over. Unofficially, more storms could form. But, that's speculation, and that's not something we do. November 18, for now, is the date the season ended. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Since reliable sources say that the season is over, Wikipedia should say so, too. That part is not a matter of us speculating on storms that may or may not form. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave it as November 18th for now. If another off-season storm forms, we can set it as "Season ongoing" again, but all sources say that the season is over. If another storm does indeed develop, it would be an off-season storm, and we don't need to leave it as Season ongoing for now because we don't know if an off-season storm will form or not. So I think we should leave it as November 18 for now. Hurricane   Covid  (contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, I will say this. Every other season article before has acknowledged the official end of the season. This article should be in no way any different than those articles. It is Crystal ball to try and speculate that another system will form, because no one knows what will happen before January 1st. whether you are a Wikipedian, or an official Meteorologist, everyone knows that the season ended on November 30th. Therefore, I Strongly Oppose putting it as "ongoing" per my stated reasons above, and per other editors here. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Really, we're in a Catch 22. Either way, we're violation WP: CRYSTALBALL. As such, I am now neutral and will no longer partake in this conversation. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s because if we keep it we are assuming no mkre storms and by saying season ongoing we are assuming more storms. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If we are really that concerned about a crystal ball violation, we could keep the dissipation date at November 18 and add a note along the lines of "The Atlantic hurricane season officially ended on November 30, but it is possible for tropical and subtropical systems to form after this date." The NHC has a similar statement [here], so we can even cite that. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that already mentioned in the lead though? "Tropical cyclone formation is possible at any time of the year". Gum  balls  678   talk  21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in the lead, and I don't think it's really necessary to add another note. I'm just putting it on the table if this continues to be an issue. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The WPTC convention is to shut down the various tropical cyclone season's when the season ends that is April 30, November 30 and December 31, regardless of how active a season it has been unless of course, a system is active on April 30, November 30 and December 31.Jason Rees (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect. "Season Ongoing" means that the season is ongoing, it is within the bounds of the six month span of the official season (June 1-November 30). Come 0:00 UTC on December 1, the season is officially over, and the dissipation date of the final storm of the season becomes the end date of the season, UNLESS there is an active storm at that time. When Hurricane Epsilon dissipated in 2005, the original date was put as December 8. Once Zeta formed, that changed to January 6, after Zeta dissipated. We assume no more storms will form because it is the offseason, the roughly six month time where typically no tropical cyclones form in the basin. Should any form, we will act accordingly. Also, we can assume all we want to, but reliable sources mark the end of the official season as November 30. The NHC stops tracking on November 30, and as such, so does Wikipedia. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what all the confusion is. We are following the reliable sources by marking the season's end date as November 18. This isn't a Wikipedia violation since this is literally the date our last storm dissipated, and we aren't assuming anything by doing it. Bottom line everyone, keep the end date as November 18 unless another system forms. The season is over. JoeMT615 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to that, the supporting reasons above are basically saying that NHC would also be violating WP:Crystalball by ending their season at the time that they have ended it for years and years in the past, because there is the possibility of an off-season storm. They doesn't focus on off-season storms unless one forms, and neither should we. We are an Encyclopedia, and we go by what reliable sources say, and in this case the NHC says that the season has ended, so it has, officially ended. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)   21:07, 3 December 2020
 * How about we say November 18 but add a system can form and it's not technically over. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a similar suggestion above. Strictly speaking, WP:CRYSTAL is primarily about predictions not adequately supported by reliable sources. By the account of most reliable sources, the season is over. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a separate note, but I think we could make it clearer in the lead that tropical cyclone formation is possible at any of the year. Maybe move it up, change the wording, something like that. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be in the infobox. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * regardless, I agree with the solution here. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Emphasize in lead
I still believe we should put an emphasis in the lead on how important it is by using the em thing. Otherwise, readers may skip one of the most important sentences. This seems to have been a fair compromise so let’s try it again. Or maybe put it in the info boxes because RS’s state storms can form at any time. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Truncate auxiliary naming list?
Since the season has officially ended, should we remove the next three greek letter names (Kappa, Lambda, Mu)? Or is there an unwritten rule to keep them there for the sake of the naming lists as a 'square' shape? [[User:Sdslayer100|Sdslayer100 ]]talk 03:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's safe to do. We don't really look for making the pages aesthetically pleasing, but rather just following earlier tradition, such as in the 2005 season, where we cut off at Zeta instead of keeping the rest of the alphabet (Plus, it already naturally forms a square: Alpha, Beta, Gamma; Delta, Epsilon, Zeta; Eta, Theta, Iota).JoeMT615 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until December 31, 2020 since we do not know what nature is going to throw at us.Jason Rees (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jason Rees, good point. I'll close it off again in January, since Epsilon and Zeta of 2005 persisted/formed after November 30th. By the way, I believe Invest 90L is a no-go, so I'm not expecting formation for a bit. JoeMT615 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Invest 90L has a 40% shot at development into Subtropical Storm Kappa, but on December 3 it will be ripped up by wind shear. Guys, we should probably edit our winter storms articles now, as winter is setting in, or focus on the Southern hemisphere(there was a rare crossover from the Australian season to the SW Indian Ocean(Tropical Low 01U). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather take those names off. Much like the NHC reducing their usual operations during the off-season, such as stopping their outlooks. When a storm forms, the name can go back up one at a time.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with removing the names, now that the season is over, and the AOI is down to 10%. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with taking off the names. The season is officially over. If another named storm develops, we can add Kappa back on, but I think its silly to keep the unused names now that the season has ended. Gum balls  678   talk  17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The season may be officially over, but many years have seen these. Besides if two more storms form, 11 is a prime number. How about we keep only kappa. Also, Invest 90L is a lost cause. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per users above. Any reason to keep the names is pure speculation at this point. Sure the basin has been extremely active this season and it is possible more storm develop, but since the season has ended, the risk is going down. Therefore I support removing the extra names. We can always add the next name back if another system forms. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait till Dec 31 just cause if we add them one at a time at Lumbada then the table will be distorted. We shouldn't be impatient. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what distortion has to do with removing or keeping names. With 10 Greek letters used, the auxiliary list is going to be uneven, because there's no way to evenly put the 10 letters into three rows. If a fourth row was added, then, yes, it would be distorted. 4-4-3 would not distort it. Gum  balls  678   talk  23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait per HurricaneTracker495's reasons. I think that I mentioned about waiting in a possibly archived earlier discussion. Also, as a sidenote, the Greek letter is lambda. Tfess up?or down? 02:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nana dissipation
Let's bring this matter to the talk page. Salamon650, I strongly suggest you stop reverting and discuss here, since you are starting to get into edit warring territory, though you have not technically violated 3RR. The TCR states Nana as being active September 1-3, but a dissipation at 00:00 UTC on September 4. I can kind of see it both ways, though a dissipation time of 00:00 would indicate that Nana did not spend any time as a tropical cyclone on 09/04. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that, as Nana had dissipated by 00:00 UTC on September 4 (not precisely at z-hour), that it dissipated late on September 3. Drdpw (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drdpw's and TornadoLGS's explanations. Because Nana had dissipated by 00:00 UTC on September 4, that would mean that Nana was still active on September 3. But then on the start of September 4, there was no Nana. Therefore, Nana lasted from September 1 to September 3. Tfess up?or down? 23:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it dissipated on September 3. First of all, it probably wasn't a tropical cyclone at 23:59 UTC, it just was at 21:00 UTC. Second of all,local time it was September 3. Finally, there seems to be consensus for it. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The TCR is very clear on the duration of Nana: September 1–3, not sure why there's a debate. Remnants/ET have never been counted in the duration. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't see this talk page, and I thought we based the times off of UTC, and now that I see this, it makes sense that it was still technically September 3.  🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)   04:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Was Omar merge meant to be a merge? Or a simple redirect?
If you see Talk: Tropical Storm Omar (2020), you see a discussion to merge. But when I tried to merge the content in, reverted it both times? I now ask the question, was this meant to just redirect the article, or are we actually merging the content in? Hurricane Tracker 495 15:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a merge, which chicdat concluded on September 27. Drdpw (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That means that we move the content from that page into the season page; which is a merge. --Hurricane Tracker 495 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was meant as a redirect. I fixed the closing template to reflect that. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Most Active Hurricane Season... Period?
I'll be straight to the point: is the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season able to be labeled as the most active hurricane season on record? There are two areas that have 'hurricane' seasons (not typhoon or cyclone seasons), those being the Northeastern Pacific and the Northern Atlantic. Well, the most active Pacific hurricane season (1992) featured 27 tropical storms, while this year we've seen 30. So, can we say that the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active hurricane season ever recorded, or not? Support or Oppose. JoeMT615 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good observation. We usually focus on records for each basin, unless the source specifically says it is a record. So if NHC or someone reputable says that, we could add it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose firmly we should consider typhoon seasons as well, in which many seasons are more active then just 30 named storms. We shouldn't just include EPAC and this basin. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * HurricaneTracker495, I understand your point, but I'm not saying this year was the most active tropical cyclone season (since that title would obviously belong to a typhoon season, as you stated), but this year was still the most active hurricane season.JoeMT615 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, we should call it tropical cyclone season. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm against adding it in until sources say so. Because it is original research. But, of course, if sources said it, I'd support. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think its best to say its the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, which is true, and something the NHC has confirmed. The same holds true for the 1992 Pacific hurricane season. I think saying most active hurricane season on record, is both original research and confusing.  Gum  balls  678   talk  17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With Honesty If I'm being honest, record-breaking activity of a season shouldn't be confused with any other individual basin. Such as 1992 EPAC, 1964 WPAC, 2019 NIO, etc. really shouldn't compare with one another, so, 2020 NATL really isn't the most active "tropical cyclone season" on record, but just most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. Iseriously (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Operation trimdown
So the article can't be split much more, unless we give articles to Gonzalo and Epsilon. Still, those will barely make a dent in the long size of the article. Eventually, most of the sections will be re-written anyway when the TCR's are written out. We can start that process by trimming down most of the sections for storms with articles. One easy way is trimming down on storms' origins. If a storm has an article, we can go into lengthy detail about its cyclogenesis, but not in this article. Preparations and aftermath generally aren't needed in this article either. That is, if anyone wanted to work on trimming it down. Otherwise, it'll probably largely stay this way until someone rewrites it post-season. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone though and trimmed many of the storm subsections, and can do more, perhaps next week, with guidance, so I can link to this section in my edit summary when others object to my cutting important facts that people will be looking for. Drdpw (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a little trimming myself. In total(this is not prose, but total bytes), I've trimmed 2,072 bytes, at least 700 bytes of prose. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section
I have an idea for the lead section: I believe we should follow suit with the 2005 article, which had many notable storms, and list the most destructive in the the lead section and then elaborate on them a bit, followed by a mention of less destructive but still notable storms. In 2005, for example, they listed the four Category 5 hurricanes of the season (Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) in the lead, described their significant impacts, and then talked about other weaker but still devastating or noteworthy systems, such as Stan and Zeta. So maybe here we could list Isaias, Laura, Sally, Delta, and Eta, (what I think) are our most significantly damaging and deadly storms, and then mention others like Hanna, Teddy, Alpha, and Iota below? I think it would help make the lead much more comfortable than the currently very bloated second paragraph. JoeMT615 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the way the storms in the second paragraph are listed is fine as is, the issue is that their descriptions are too wordy.  If we can find a way to do that, I think the second paragraph will be much better and less wordy  Gum  balls  678   talk  14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Iota is far, far worse then Isaias and Sally. We'd probably do Laura, Eta, Iota, and maybe Delta and Teddy as other cat 4s, and go into other storms like Isaias, Sally, Zeta, and possibly Cristobal(it did kill 15 people, after all). --Hurricane Tracker 495 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lead. I removed Cristobal, Hanna, Zombie Paulette, and Zeta's snow part. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 01:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I can honestly see a storm causing $665 mil and killing 15 being in the lede. TS Cristobal I can see being retired. --Hurricane Tracker 495 01:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Cristobal isn't a notable storm. There is no way Cristobal will be retired, and btw, it cannot compare to drastically more notable storms such as Isaias, Sally, Laura, Iota, Eta, Delta, Zeta, and Paulette. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 01:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that. Hurricane Otto was retired and had less of an impact,this caused drastic flooding in Central America and Mexico. The only reason it wouldn't is if (1) WMO declines the request or (2) Eta and Iota outshine it.
 * But fine, we can wait until the name is(or isn't)retired. I still wouldn't put Delta up however. It only killed six people. --Hurricane Tracker 495 01:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have readded Hanna in a way to only add 62 bytes of prose. Notable, as it was the first hurricane of the season and therefore deserves a mention. --Hurricane Tracker 495 01:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed Gamma and Delta. Otto caused 8 more deaths than Cristobal. But anyway, Cristobal can be re-added if we kick another storm out. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 02:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hang on, gotta find a storm to remove. And I don't want to remove Hanna, because it was the first hurricane, which is notable. I gotta think about this, and as it is 9:13 PM in my timezone(granted I'm up for forty more minutes at least, but I lose my computer in thirty), likely gonna be tomorrow. --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we remove Nana? Nana did no deaths and $20 million in damage. --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I support removing Nana, but what was so bad about Teddy? It made landfall only once, and wasn't even tropical when it did. Any thoughts? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should kick Teddy out. The only notable thing about the system was that it was one of the largest hurricanes, but there is no other thing that is notable about the system. -Shift674-🌀contribs 13:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What storms should be in season lede?
I am asking this as trimming is necessary is necessary but what do we trim? I know what storms to keep, but some ones we may want to have one over the other. We definitely need Arthur and Bertha for the preseason stuff, and Hanna as the first hurricane. And Laura as the first major(as well as causing $16 billion in damage and killing 77). Hurricane Tracker 495 03:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I think Delta has to be in the lede, it caused ~$4 billion in damages. Nana should be removed imo, I think after that Teddy would be the next one to go. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  04:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Cristobal could be mentioned as it was the first storm of the many to break the earliest formation record as well as killing 15 people Cyclonetracker (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Delta only killed six. Hurricane Tracker 495 12:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove Nana and Teddy. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 13:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * After school at 1830 UTC. Hurricane Tracker 495 13:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it for you. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we now have enough room to add Cristobal. A notable, possible retired Storm. Hurricane Tracker 495 14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deaths aren't the only contributing factor to a notable storm... From this season alone, Sally and Zeta only killed 8. Delta has a much higher chance of retirement than Cristobal imo. Also, in 2010, Igor got retired with 4 deaths and in 2008 Paloma got retired with 1 death. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  17:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d be careful with that. We’re not sure how Greek letters would be retired; under current policy; it doesn’t sound like much of a retirement. But in any case, Cristobal killed 15 people and did $665 million. We’ve retired hurricanes that only killed one person, hurricanes that have only done $1 million in damage(~$2 million adjusted for inflation). It caused heavy flooding across Mexico, and Guatemala. IMO, if Amanda is retired, Cristobal will be as well.
 * But it doesn’t really matter if a name is retired. Our 5th deadliest storm, in any case, should be in the lede. And we technically have enough room in the lede. I’ll add it in a way to add very little prose, once I’m done with school in 20 minutes. Hurricane Tracker 495 18:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say damage totals are more important than death totals, personally, in indicating the effects of a storm - people can move, buildings cannot. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  20:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Buildings can be replaced, people cannot. If fifteen people died, that means 15 famalies who lost someone(maybe a little under depending on if famalies die). That's 15 lives....just lost. If it was 15 rip current deaths I'd agree, but it was also the 9th costliest. (Which I guess isn't nearly as impressive). --Hurricane Tracker 495 20:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that part, but I'm talking about pure effects; people can evacuate safely and basically be removed from the population that can be killed, meaning less people can even be killed; damage totals are going to be the same pretty much if people evacuate or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but damage can also be reduced. For example, I quote this from List of New York hurricanes. September 11, 1960 — Hurricane Donna makes landfall on Long Island as a Category 2 hurricane. Sustained winds of 100 mph (160 km/h) on eastern Long Island and 70 mph (110 km/h) winds on western Long Island are reported, and tides are 6 feet (2 m) above normal along most of the coast. Strong waves also cause beach erosion and several homes along the shore to be destroyed. Due to well-executed warnings, damages are extremely low, and it is reported that no deaths result from the storm.[37] When people evacuate, sometimes they take there things with them. The more damage, the more deaths, though vice versa isn't quite like that. Let's take, as a hypothetical example, a category 2 storm is forecast to strike Brooklyn. Lots who lives in NYC will evacuate, and take there things with them, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. What I try to do to balence them is multiply the damage amount by the deaths-in this case, 9975 million when I combine them. So, nearly ten billion. IIRC, that's the 8th highest for the season.
 * Now, another way damage can be reduced with evacuations is that sometimes people will prepare there things(especially parks)to reduce damage. Like, a national park may be covered up. It's complicated, but damage reductions can occur.
 * Now that we have it so it is the 8th worst storm out of 30, is it appropriate to include it. I'd say yes, it is. There are other ways to trim, such as maybe giving Epsilon an article. (Or Vicky). That wouldn't do much, but we wouldn't have to go into as much detail on the formation if it already has an article. Leaning Epsilon. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cristobal should be re-added back into the lead. Its death toll and damage estimates are noteworthy enough to be summarized in the lead. There's no need to argue about if deaths or damage are more notable when Cristobal did its fair share of both. I still oppose an article for Epsilon, but if someone can make one with enough information that would significantly reduce the size of the season article, then one could be warranted. However, there's not much that could be added to create an article for the storm, or enough out there to reduce the size of the season article to one that is less bulky. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This is getting wildly offtopic. No harm in keeping Cristobal, probably time to talk about what other storms to keep. --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a way to re-add Delta/Zeta while only adding 95 bytes of readable prose, should I add them back in? Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  22:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 95 bytes isn't much, though I suggest adding Delta over Zeta. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nooooooooooooooo, readd Zeta over Delta! Delta did $400 million more in damage but Zeta killed 2 more people, and was overall a worse storm. The only thing about Delta was the rapid intensification; kinda trivial for the lede. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Including 1 and not the other wouldn't shrink the sentence size very much, here's what I had:
 * Hurricanes Delta and Zeta struck Louisiana in October, each causing around $4 billion in damage. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  23:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually 96 bytes of prose, but ok. However, it's too vague. Like, the damages for both are $200 million off, different parts of Louisiana; readding it in 96 bytes is a problem. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020
Under the "name retirement issue" section, for the phrase "..the severity and possible retirement-worthiness these storms demonstrates the..", insert "of" after "retirement-worthiness." It's a minor grammatical issue, but I do think it will make the section have more sense when others read it. 174.74.136.36 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for noticing. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)