Talk:Hurricane Lorenzo (2019)/Archive 1

Former Easternmost Category 5
Isn’t the former easternmost category 5 Isabel, not Hugo? Ȝeſtikl (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is Hugo. Look closely at File:Map of Atlantic Category Five hurricanes.png.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Map to compare to other hurricanes
I made a map of where other hurricanes became category 5 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hurricanes3.png Link to the data and the code in that submission. Can I add that image to this entry? David Curran —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC) The map was removed "13:09, 1 October 2019‎ Jasper Deng talk contribs‎ 14,236 bytes -150‎  this is an uninformative map, with no lat/lon labels, and is misleading as many Category 5 hurricanes maintained peak intensity in far more than one BT point" The other map on this page also has no Lat/Long labels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzo_2019_track.png. And this section deals with 'Lorenzo became the easternmost Category 5' not how long the peak intensity was maintained for. Iamreddave (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How about using this photo (right)? It doesn't use lat/lon, but it's pretty clear either way without the lines (might I point out that the hurricane track maps also don't have lat/lon). This map doesn't show peak intensity, it shows where each hurricane initially became a Category 5.


 * I like that map. I am not sure about the 1851 claim as until 1967 a lot of out at sea hurricanes might have been missed. I will leave the call on it to Jasper Deng Iamreddave (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Track
Why is there no C5 dot on Lorenzo's track? Michael has one and according to the TCR it wasnt a C5 at 1800z BananaIAm (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed at Talk:2019 Atlantic hurricane season. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Size
I would really like to know what source is being used to justify the claim that Lorenzo set a size record, and what metric of size you are using, because a bold claim like this can't stand without a source (and unlike many other records, cannot be easily verified with other articles like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes). Absent such sourcing, that claim cannot stay in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The NHC advisory maps. Buttons0603 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is WP:SYNTH to conclude that from Lorenzo's maps since they say nothing about its relation to previous storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They do if you compare them to previous storms Buttons0603 (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is still WP:SYNTH. Areal comparisons are difficult to do visually due to the nuances of map projections. This is too far of a stretch.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Met Office have referred to it as the biggest ever. (1) This source also refers to it as one of the largest and this was far from its peak size (2) so we may just have to wait for better sources to become available maybe with post-season analysis. There is also this article (3) saying it is one of the largest in the headline, but I can't actually read it cos I'm in Europe Buttons0603 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "biggest-ever" – sorry, this vague claim is not close to what is being claimed by the text I removed, and Mirror is not known to be a very reliable source. I got access to the Orlando Sentinel article but it too does not support any such claim. What we can say is that Lorenzo was unusually large on account of its gale-force wind radii, which NHC repeatedly emphasized. But there is no record being set here short of a reliable source making that exact claim.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If we're going by gale diameter, Lorenzo doesn't even make it into the top five since its maximum gale diameter was 610 nautical miles (see forecast advisories 38, 39, 40) which converts to 700 miles (1130 km). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the consensus to mention its size, since it was definitely extraordinary, but to hold out on any record until the TCR comes out. Auree ★ ★  18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

downgraded?
this file fails to mention its brief 140 knot (160mph) peak. error or actual downgrade? Fleur De  Odile  14:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The peak was at 130Z and the storm was downgraded to 135 knots by 06z. Noah Talk 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So it was a non-synoptic point then? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also adding if the peak is downgraded in TCR does that remove the essence of having this page? Or is the ship accident and impacts in Azores still sufficient enough to keep it? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article is improved and there are any impacts to the Azores, I see no reason why it should be deleted, even if it’s downgraded to a 4. Grammarguruguy (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Most likely, NHC will place the peak intensity at 3z, a nonsynoptic point in between, as it peaked at neither 0z nor 6z. The impacts will likely merit keeping the article and even 135 knots still holds the intensity record at 45 W.—Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviving this topic as the IBTracS data revised the 03z point from 140 kt to 135 kt. Still unofficial but warrants a mention in discussion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not news. 3z there is a linear interpolation based on operational BT and therefore is not any new information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And with the TCR out, my guess was spot on.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

use mdy
I've noticed the article uses the use mdy template. IMO use dmy would be more apt, as all of the seriously affected territories, and basically all the affected territories except the US use the day-month-year format.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  15:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the change.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  17:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lorenzo peak intensify image.
There has been controversy between the usage of these two images for the Infobox

There are good arguments for both as one is a great quality but is at a weakened state. The other isn’t as great as a quality but does show the peak intensity of Lorenzo. Let me know what you think. Bóng Ma - Talk   16:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's a consensus that this article is not primary over other Hurricane Lorenzos and the dab should stay. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Lorenzo (2019) → Hurricane Lorenzo – The page "Hurricane Lorenzo" is a redirect to List of storms named Lorenzo. I think that the hurricane is notable enough to omit the name. The name has never been discussed before, and is therefore not controversial. It would be useful due to the fact that someone searches for Hurricane Lorenzo, and they get to the redirect. Then they have to find the right storm in the list. Wxman28 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The storm that hit Mexico in 2007 is pretty notable as well. This storm caused only moderate damage for an Atlantic storm, not exceptional damage. I don't see this as a case where the more recent storm is largely more important than all of the others. Noah Talk 23:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because dropping the year should be reserved in clear cut cases, and while a Cat 5, Lorenzo 19 was always not important compared to the 07 version. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hurricane Noah. pinging those who participated in the other move discussion that's going on and others who might be interested to share their thoughts. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM, and the fact that Lorenzo 2007 caused almost 100 million in damage and 6 deaths. CodingCyclone!  🌀 📘 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support. This was a Category 5 hurricane. Also, sure it's recentism, but the Cat 5 hurricane got 26 times the number of views over the Cat 1 hurricane that hit Mexico. I don't know what's the right ratio is to say it's notable "enough". For what's it's worth, "hurricane Lorenzo" |Hurricane_Lorenzo_(2007)|Hurricane_Lorenzo|List_of_storms_named_Lorenzo got 581 views, four times more than the dab for "List of storms named Lorenzo", but still far less than "Hurricane Lorenzo (2019)". ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By this standard you're saying that because it was a C5 it gets top priority and that 2005’s Emily should get the same treatment when it’s obvious there’s been worse Emily’s in the past, such as in 1987 (and in 2017 I tried requesting a move but withdrew it for the reasons you’re proposing above. That doesn’t add up at all. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Emily 05 |Hurricane_Emily_(1993)|Hurricane_Emily_(1987) only gets 6 times the views as Emily 93, which gets twice the views of Emily 87. I’m not saying my weak support as a standard, just that it is viewed more and is significantly more impactful than the only other storm of its name. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Primarily stayed out over water hardly affecting anyone.  Given the odds, a subsequent storm named Lorenzo may end up joining the retired list in the future. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Vida0007 (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Lorenzo WAS a rather record breaking Category 5 hurricane, and this Lorenzo is almost certainly the first hurricane to pop up if you search the name up on Google, for example, but generally I don't see a particular significance where the other Lorenzo is somehow unimportant compared to this one. Impacts from Lorenzo 2007 were pretty significant. Meteorologically, this Lorenzo would probably be more notable (but there appears to maybe be a bias towards stronger hurricanes in the media, anyway.) Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support It appears that Hurricane Lorenzo was the second deadliest hurricane of the 2019 hurricane season and caused 19 deaths. It is notable that of the 19 deaths, 11 were from the ship Bourbon Rose. (See https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL132019_Lorenzo.pdf) Given this information, the hurricane warrants its own article. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose WP:COMMONNAME but I don't see this happening as Hurricane Linda (1997) is not Hurricane Linda, for example.  Mario Jump  83!  05:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  18:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Lorenzo (2019) → Hurricane Lorenzo – The name was Good without a (2019) 122.2.118.211 (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — “Hurricane Lorenzo” was not retired even with it being a category 5 hurricane. The “(2019)” in the name is needed to destiquish between this hurricane and Hurricane Lorenzo (2007). Only: (1) retired names, (2) names used for the first time or (3) names used for the first time between Tropcial Storm and Hurricane; should not have the “(Year)”. Since this was not retired & there is a previous hurricane with the same name (notable enough for a stand-alone article I might add), the “(2019)” must remain. Move for a technical speedy close as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the exclusion of a year also applies to storms that meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Out of the two "Hurricane Lorenzo" articles, this is by-far the more notable one. The sentiment of this move is valid despite a reason not being given by the IP. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support as this is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Using deaths and damage as a crude metric of significance, we have 20 and US$367 million for 2019's compared to 6 and US$92 million for 2007's; for 30-day pageviews to see which Lorenzo people are looking for, we have 2,202 for 2019 and just 85 for 2007. (I'll ignore the other two tropical storms named Lorenzo as they had no land impact.) I will say though that I personally don't like removing the year from a name that isn't retired since retirement is (usually) the gold standard for identifying the primary topic, and in the absence of that there's always a chance that a future incarnation will steal the crown. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support per KN2731. I generally agree with pretty much everything they bring up; for me, the pageviews are what tip it over.

Also, as a procedural note, there is a previous RM which ended with consensus to not move. Pinging previous RM participants: I'm not entirely sure why this isn't marked on the talk page banner (guess it just got forgotten?), but I'll add it there now. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)
 * Please don't ping people to discussions in the future like this. It taints the outcomes of discussions since it actually is canvassing. Noah Talk 11:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hurricane Noah, KN2731 the consensus for move end more weeks vote a  Support or Oppose 122.2.118.243 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting because I was pinged here. Noah Talk 13:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.