Talk:October 2021 nor'easter

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: moved to October 2021 nor'easter.

In this discussion, the community debates the correct title for an article about a storm that recently battered the northeastern United States, causing property damage, power outages, and loss of life. Generally speaking, meteorologists give names to tropical and subtropical cyclones, but not to extratropical cyclones. The storm at issue here hit the Northeast as an extratropical cyclone, meaning that it had not yet been named; the media thus referred to it simply as a nor'easter. It later moved eastward into the middle of the Atlantic, where it became a subtropical (later tropical) storm, which meteorologists duly named Wanda. Under the name Wanda, the storm had few noteworthy effects, and it eventually was absorbed into another cyclone. The question in this discussion is whether our article on this storm should be titled "October 2021 nor'easter", which emphasizes its pre-Wanda effects on New England, or "Tropical Storm Wanda (2021), which emphasizes the official title that wasn't used until after the storm hit land.

This was a difficult discussion to close because a number of participants – on both sides – made little effort to ground their arguments in our policies on article titles. From a purely numerical perspective, editors were split (by my count) 15–11 in favor of a move, which oftentimes would result in a "no consensus" closure. But this is not a vote: to determine consensus, I am required to consider "the quality of the arguments...as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", which means discounting comments that aren't consistent with our policies. The arguments made in opposition to the move consisted largely of bald assertions that, to quote one participant, "The system. Was named. WANDA!" Such unreasoned comments do not appeal to policy at all; indeed, WP:COMMONNAME expressly notes that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title. While other oppose !votes were slightly more sophisticated, they still failed to make a logically tenable claim that the proposed title did not comport with policy. Many of the supporters, by contrast, did make arguments grounded in policy. A few examples: LightandDark2000's !vote, which was cited by a number of other participants, cited WP:COMMONNAME to argue that most reliable sources did not refer to the storm as Wanda, while Hurricane Noah argued that it would be undue if the title focused on a portion of the storm that attracted little attention from reliable sources. These are legitimate policy-based arguments, and the opposers made no serious attempt to rebut them beyond making unsupported statements that Wanda was a preferable title. As such, consensus in this discussion favors moving the article to October 2021 nor'easter, as proposed.

Consensus can change, and it might be worth reconsidering this decision in a few months if reliable sources start consistently referring to this storm as Wanda or if other policy-based arguments in favor of that title come to mind. Additionally, it should go without saying that this doesn't mean that all mentions of Wanda should be scrubbed from the article: until consensus decides otherwise, this article should discuss the entire history of the storm, from beginning to end. I appreciate the enthusiasm expressed in this discussion, and I hope that my closure makes sense in light of our policies and guidelines. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tropical Storm Wanda (2021) → October 2021 nor'easter – Wanda is being given WP:UNDUE weight here. The nor'easter precursor caused the entire impact and is by far the most significant aspect of the system's existence. For the sake of neutrality, we should make the title reflect what's most important (the nor'easter and its impact) and shift the article away from a tropical cyclone format. Wanda still needs mention, but it shouldn't be dominating this entire article when the nor'easter is significantly more important. Noah^Talk 04:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment – How about following the model of the 1991 Perfect Storm? Is that sorta what you are looking for? United States Man (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I was thinking more along the lines of Columbus Day Storm of 1962 where we can incorporate additional components into the infobox such as type and power losses. Noah^Talk 05:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• This is a better idea than just calling it “Wanda”. Referring to the nor’easter as “Wanda” is technically meteorologically incorrect. However, you’ll never get it renamed in a discussion here because people are always going to cling to the name. The best bet is to just include a substantial history of the nor’easter prior to tropical transition and to include a good clarifying piece in the lead section. United States Man (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak Support, despite the fact that Wanda is the only official name gives me pause, the storm is primarily known for its impacts as a non-tropical cyclone, so I see the objection with the current title. New content should be added to the MH describing its non-tropical phase, though since this was the same overall system, the current content related to Wanda is mostly fine. Since this system was both tropical and non-tropical, classifying this under WPTC and non-trop is probably the way to go as well. Ambivalent on what infobox should be used. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• Very strong oppose It was called Wanda. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong oppose. If the system is already named it does not need to be changed. Tropical storm Wanda is fine as it is. IBlazeCat (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Weak support changing mine to a weak support as we can change the title to october 2021 nor'easter and at the end we can mention that this system contributed to the formation of tropical storm wanda. Hurricane4235 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong opposeThe system was given the name Wanda and it is not needed to be moved. We could separate the pages but i don't find that needed at this time or we could split its history as section being its Nor'Easter portion of its life and the other being its subtropical transition and then eventual demise HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Separating the article is NOT an option. Neither is excluding one phase of the storm in favor of another (whether its the extratropical or the tropical/subtropical phase). We simply do not have that option. As Wikipedia editors, we are mandated to cover all the information on the storm, per WP:COVERAGE. How many times do I need to tell people this before they finally get it? An article focusing only on one part of the storm would be incomplete, and we are not allowed to present our readers with an incomplete picture. Regardless of the final title and format this article gets, all of the nor'easter and tropical storm information will be kept. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Does it not matter that the news agencies and people affected by the storm do not associate the name Wanda with it? To them, it was an unnamed nor'easter. I think it's a poor excuse to say Wanda is fine just because the NHC assigned the name to it. The tropical portion has little to no significance as compared to the unnamed nor'easter portion which did a lot of damage and has much wider recognition. Wanda is being given too much weight here as its overall significance is minimal compared to the extratropical part. Noah^Talk 12:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Extremely Strong opposeThe system. Was named. WANDA! CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • No, the nor’easter was not named Wanda, so that argument is invalid. United States Man (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I was talking about the tropical storm CyclonicStormYutu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support. The nor'easter was much more impactful than the tropical system that developed out of it. There should either be separate articles for the two, or this proposed move should go through. Calidum 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support – The fact that the tropical system was named “Wanda” has nothing to do with its lack of impact or the actual impact of the precursor nor’easter. Wanda as a storm by itself should be merged back into the season article. United States Man (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong support – Just because the later stages of of the nor'easter were named, that does not warrant us to keep the article named that way, when all of the notability and severity and attention were to the nor'easter itself, which caused the damage and had the most effects. Like many have stated before, we can still mention Wanda's meteorological history, however the article should be primarily focused on the precursor. It simply is common sense. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong oppose it does not matter if the nor’easter was more significant, they are all the same system aka Wanda. Plus, Wanda was a fairly long lived storm for November standards. You’re basically arguing Melissa 2019 is not notable for the same reasons. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• It does indeed matter. Yes, they are the same system, however, our treatment in the title and body should not put UNDUE weight on Wanda. The sources have attributed the damage to an unnamed nor'easter so editors will look for the nor'easter rather than Wanda. To most people and the majority of news sources, Wanda is just some random TS over the middle of nowhere. Wanda needs to be mentioned, but we need to keep this article balanced for neutrality. Even if it was fairly long-lived, the real notability is almost exclusive to the impact and time spent as a nor'easter. Melissa was kind of a mix between sources attributing impact to the SS and the nor'easter as it transitioned while causing damage. In this case, we had a clear cutoff of 4-5 days that caused there to be little connection between Wanda and the nor'easter. Noah^Talk 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• yet again i have named a clear solution. split the MH in half. one for Wanda and the other for our Nor'Easter HavocPlayz (talk)
• CommentI have an easy win-win for both sides, split the articles history into sub sections. one for Wanda and the other for the Nor'Easter. we can keep this article and we still can have both having their own dedicated sections in which we can add detail HavocPlayz (talk)
  • That only works for the met history. The tropical phase of the storm caused no/minimal impact.Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• We can't do this. Wanda's MH section isn't long enough to warrant having subsections, unlike an article with a long MH (such as Hurricane Leslie (2018) and Hurricane Sam). Unless Wanda's MH gets a significant expansion (at least doubling it in length), it should not get any subsections. We should not implement a "compromise" change just because some people like (or don't) like it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support The tropical portion of the storm is clearly less notable than the precursor nor'easter. Nevertheless, the entire meteorological history should remain, covering both the extratropical and tropical portions of the storm's lifetime. I disagree with splitting the article into separate articles for the nor'easter and the tropical phase as the latter can easily be summarized in the season article. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Personally i prefer leaving the article intact and just keeping them merged. sure the nor'easter was notable but it was a Nor'Easter/Bomb cyclone for a few days(i consider Ex-cyclone after clearing the coastal areas). Plus we can't just throw out this article without getting rid of Melissa 2019 as well due to a similar situation HavocPlayz (talk)
  • The article won't be thrown out, rather moved and renamed. Also, per above, we would keep information on Wanda, however we would shift the information to be focused more on the nor'easter which did the most damage. Also, per what @Hurricane Noah: said above, this is not a similar situation to Melissa, as that storm caused impacts while both an extratropical cyclone and a subtropical cyclone, and the sources also acknowledged that, while Wanda's precursor caused the damage, and then there was a period of time between when the system became tropical and when it caused the impacts. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strongly support : I searched on the web and I found nowhere a name for the Nor'Easter while it was raging along the US coast. Even TWC did not do it. So why should we amalgamate the effect of that storm with Wanda which developped in the middle of the Atlantic with the cut-off center? You might argue that other tropical storms mentioned the effects of their precursor, but those precursors were tropical in nature and directly associated with what they became later. It is not the case of Wanda, the two are separate entities and the proposition to rename seems more logical to me. Pierre cb (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Even though I agree with the move, this is not much of a relevant argument because the nor'easter and Wanda are indeed the same low pressure system. Wanda was just the same low but with the frontal features detached. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support I was thinking of this myself looking at the article and seeing not a whole lot of it is actually dedicated to Wanda when it was a tropical storm (the impacts). I'm glad someone brought it up but I personally believe that the article should be renamed and reformatted like this but there should be a separate section dedicated to Wanda's tropical phase in the "nor'easter's" meteorological history, but the history of Wanda's extratropical phase could be expanded. I argue just about anyone in the United States would probably not be familar with the name "Tropical Storm Wanda" for a nor'easter which was definitely not a tropical storm when it was off the coast. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong oppose per Chicdat and HavocPlayz. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment did counting and currently support outnumbers oppose to move the article for those keeping track HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Number of editors for / against is unimportant really, as the decision will be made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Drdpw (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, the number of votes does matter, but it's not quite as important as the strength/quality of those arguments. RfCs are a mix of both a discussion and a vote. In other words, there's voting involved, but it's not strictly a vote. Unfortunately, a number of new users (and even inexperienced RfC closers) fail to understand that. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support: While extra-tropical, the nor'easter did a lot of damage. While tropical, Wanda meandered harmlessly in the open North Atlantic. The nor'easter is known for its impacts as a bomb cyclone, while Wanda is known for nothing other than for being a weak fish storm. The current title (and the overall thrust of the article as currently organized), puts too much emphasis (UNDUE weight) on Wanda, which it should not, given its lesser importance / notability. That said, after renaming (if consensus supports doing so) I would like there to be a sentence in the opening paragraph stating something to the effect... "After moving eastward into the open Atlantic Ocean, the system developed into a tropical cyclone, Tropical Storm Wanda, the twenty-first named storm of the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season." Drdpw (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Personally we should split the MH and give the title wanda and the proposed name for the move while focusing impacts and aftermath on the Nor'Easter HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That wouldn't really work, as there would only really be enough information to have a decent section on the nor'easter and its impacts, while we we would have a relatively short and bland section on Wanda, which, as has been said many times, has not caused any sort of affects or done any damage, compared to the precursor. The best option would be to have the article on the nor'easter and then mention Wanda in the appropriate areas, along with a short summary of its met history. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Strongest Oppose It was named WANDA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricane4235 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, the nor'easter was not named Wanda, and that argument has no relevance to the move discussion. United States Man (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Strongly oppose: Using a local attribution instead of an internationally recognised name is too American-bias. 🐱💬 03:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This has nothing to do with any kind of perceived "American bias" but actually with what meets notability guidelines by the usual standards here. Wanda as a tropical storm affected nothing, so there should not be an article dedicated to it. The nor'easter caused substantial enough impact that it should have an article. United States Man (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Note for closing – To the user that closes this discussion, I would simply like for you to take a look at the responses of the "oppose" comments here (and the relative inexperience of most of those users). All those who oppose this move only give the reason that the tropical storm was named "Wanda". That has nothing to do with this move and the storm that affected the East Coast was not named Wanda. The article should be about the impacts to the East Coast from the nor'easter, not the tropical storm that affected nothing while over the north Atlantic. The tropical storm itself would not have an article if it was any other tropical storm (no impact to land), so Wanda should not have one. The article should be about the nor'easter and focus on that. United States Man (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak Support – I personally would prefer using "Wanda" in the article title, given that it's more recognizable and more of a standard title for storms that were TCs. However, we cannot ignore the fact that essentially all of the significant impacts occurred several days before Wanda was named, when it was still an unnamed nor'easter. Thus, most of the media reports on the storm's impacts at the time had no name (Wanda) to attribute to this storm, and most of the American public (the people who were affected by this storm) either did not connect the storm to Wanda, or didn't make the connection until after it was named. It's very likely that most of them still haven't made this connection. We have to take the WP:COMMONNAME into account, and on this basis, "Wanda" isn't the common name. In fact, it's referred to much more often as a "nor'easter" and as a "bomb cyclone" in most of the media reports on the storm. For Wanda, we basically have two different ways to format it: 1) a TC-based format (similar to 1991 Perfect Storm) or 2) an EC-based format (similar to Columbus Day Storm of 1962). Either way, all of the information will be kept (as it is required, per WP:COVERAGE), but the only difference will be in the article's title and formatting (such as the infobox used). For those users who have suggested breaking up the article or cutting down (or minimizing) a part of the storm's lifecycle, let me remind you all once again that as Wikipedia users, we are NOT allowed to do this, as we are mandated to provide our readers with a complete picture of the article's subject. That means that both the nor'easter AND the tropical portions must be described in detail. No portion of the article should be trimmed down if it is renamed. In fact, I would argue that an expansion would be far more appropriate (though the MH expansion will probably have to wait until after the TCR for Wanda is released). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Strong oppose – The nor'easter and TS Wanda is the same thing. It would be meaningless to rename it. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 12:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is technically not the same thing, even though one led to the other. United States Man (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually the opposite – it would be a meaningful change, one that acknowledges the significance of the storm's extratropical (nor'easter) phase. Drdpw (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@United States Man and Drdpw: TS Wanda is literally formed from that extratropical low, so isn't the same thing ? Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 12:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wanda formed off a extratropical cyclone becoming subtropical then fully tropical before becoming post-tropical and merging with a cold front as most storms in this area of the atlantic do HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support per LightandDark2000 HurricaneEdgar 15:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak Support based on LightandDark2000's resoning ima change my stance and go for a weaker support given the change of my opinion and evidence supplied HavocPlayz (talk)

It shouldn't or should be renamed - because of the tropical storm naming and Tropical Storm Wanda as a nor'easter, and when Wanda was named, it took a track towards the Azores and Ireland. Wanda should have its own article, but renaming to a nor'easter is fine because of its effects on the United States. I'll stay even for now. Severestorm28 talk Contribs 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak Support (see LightandDark2000's opinion) HurricaneKappa! ^talkpage! 00:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose We should go by the name of the storm instead of complicating things by adding a bunch of different names.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

As I’ve explained before, the nor'easter was not named Wanda, and that argument has no relevance to the move discussion. “Wanda” did nothing. The nor’easter, which was not Wanda, caused all the impact. United States Man (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The storm is commonly known as the October Nor'Easter or Tropical Storm Wanda based on who you ask. both sides have valid points but best bet is to create a win-win so no side is left hanging(yes ik we need a conensus but i think its better we do something along the lines of keeping Tropical Storm Wanda but change the lead to include more detail of the Nor'Easter and less on Wanda and have the MH split, similar to hurricane sam disscussing the storms seperate peaks 97.101.76.40 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment How is that not relevant? Tropical Storm Wanda is part of the meteorological history of this storm as the low became tropical. Having a separate piece on it makes no sense to me and would just add confusion. Keep it simple.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also may I ask for another example of this?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Strong oppose Since the system has been named by the NHC I think that the article should be left as is. It should be left as Wanda in my opinion. Joshua Shah (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, as I have already explained, "Wanda" by itself does not deserve an article in the first place, as it was a fish storm that affected no one. This article should be about the nor'easter which impacted the United States. United States Man (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment I feel that many of the opposers are completely disregarding (or turning a blind eye to) Noah's rational (@Chicdat, CyclonicStormYutu, and Hurricane4235:). Wanda is being given WP:UNDUE weight [as the] nor'easter precursor caused the entire impact and is by far the most significant aspect of the system's existence. For the sake of neutrality, we should make the title reflect what's most important (the nor'easter and its impact) and shift the article away from a tropical cyclone format. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do understand his reason but we should make a win-win here. we didn't touch much on the Nor'Easter that directly led to the The Perfect Storm aka what should have been named Henri.our best bet is to take its format but change to focus more on the Nor'easter but still keep wanda in as it did itself technically become a windstorm before its merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocPlayz (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wanda would be "kept in" under the proposed new name. What the title change would do is to recognize that the nor'easter was a more notable event/storm, far more notable than Wanda. Drdpw (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak oppose I do not believe this title should be changed in any way. While, as Havoc has said, Wanda is the more prominent name for this system, and maybe should instead either keep the article name as it is and pay more attention to the nor'easter impacts, or do it vice versa. - Sria >:3 SR.1111111 (talk)♥️ 02:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The nor'easter does not have a name and it was never called Wanda. Drdpw (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support Per LightandDark2000. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 02:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Shouldn't we close this as it has been more then 7 days since we opened this thread? HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment The supporters are saying that the nor'easter "contributed to the formation of Wanda", but it didn't. It was Wanda, and Wanda was it. A similar case is Tropical Storm Leslie (2000). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

In that case then, the ≠nor'easter is noteworthy enough to warrant an article but Wanda is not; current title should be made into a redirect to the Wanda subsection in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, and Wanda by itself doesn’t require an article as it was a fish storm that affected nothing. Two paragraphs on the season page could do. It really isn’t similar to Leslie since Leslie formed right off the coast of Florida. United States Man (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chicdat: No, your Leslie example does not work. Leslie formed as a subtropical depression over Florida. Wanda formed hundreds of miles away from the NEUS, which it affected as a nor'easter. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 21:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply