Talk:Storm Daniel

A news item involving Storm Daniel was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 September 2023.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Non-tropical / Floods Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Top-importance). Africa: Egypt / Libya Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Egypt (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as High-importance). Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bulgaria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Storm Daniel (24 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,129 6,129 Meteorological history 5,109 5,109 Impact 2,654 76,851 Greece 13,712 13,712 Turkey 2,251 2,251 Bulgaria 4,467 4,467 Libya 12 51,629 Preparations 2,045 2,045 Derna dam failures 25,015 25,015 Other areas 9,626 9,626 Nationwide impact 14,931 14,931 Egypt 1,399 1,399 Israel 739 739 Aftermath 17 34,870 Libya 100 32,220 Domestic reactions 21,975 21,975 International reactions 10,145 10,145 Economic effects 1,598 1,598 Effects on migration 1,035 1,035 See also 1,034 1,034 References 15 91 Notes 47 47 Citations 29 29 External links 1,046 1,046 Total 125,130 125,130

• Support split. The article on Storm Daniel is now 88 kilobytes. This is long enough that according to WP:Splitting, the article should be split based on length alone. The talk page is now more than 95 kb, which is longer than the article itself. It is clear that it should be split and so somebody needs to do it. Narayansg (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The floods in Libya are very devastating (with up to 2,000 feared dead and thousands missing) so I think the event deserves an article of its own (the storm has hit Egypt today so it might make more sense if the storm causes similar impact in that country too). Quake1234 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split The dam failure is its own man-made catastrophe. The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure is its own article separate from Typhoon Nina (1975) which caused it. The Collapse of the World Trade Center has its own article distinct from the September 11 attacks which caused it. The Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam has its own article separate from the Russo-Ukrainian War which caused it. There are several paragraphs of content in the section on the dam collapse within the article on Storm Daniel, and it is enough material to be its own page. It is all the more imperative to have its own article because the dam itself did not have its own article, so all of its information about the dam's history must be on this page. There is a lot of information available on how the dam was built, and neglected, and how no warning was given to Derna residents. That has to be its own page. Narayansg (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not enough content here yet. No need to be hasty with splits.

Noah, AA^Talk 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there’s a consensus then. Very well. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already? With only one vote? One oppose vote isn't going to achieve consensus. Tails Wx 12:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with user Quake1234. It does deserve its own article. More than 5 thousand dead, two dams broken, and more. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time of writing this, the article is only 41,000 bytes in size. Per WP:AS, length doesn’t justify a split. Below this, a floods article was merged back into this article as a clear WP:CONTENTFORK. So, what I would say is this: If users truly believe a floods article should exist, create a draft article but do not rush the article. In the exact opposite idea of WP:RUSH, which is to not rush to delete an article, given the consensus below to keep the floods in this article (plus the technical CONTENTFORK merge due to this article being featured on ITN right now), users shouldn’t rush to create a floods article and rush to split it out of this article. In the draftspace, you can duplicate text and expand it. After Storm Daniel (this article) is out of ITN (probably a week from now), if a floods draft article was started and good enough, a discussion could occur as to whether or not the draft article is good enough to split from this article. But on a technical side, Storm Daniel is the main topic (way more the main topic for flooding in Libya right now than floods from the Dams), so the ITN recognized article should be kept together as long as it is on ITN. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Barely any storms get their own pages for the impacts they have caused. Freddy, Gilbert, ect - historic storms that do not have their own articles on the impacts they have caused, and i do not see why this one should be split as it was directly caused by daniel. Ikethecatto (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. As of 9-14, I concur with the idea that 'the event deserves an article of its own'. The already-known size and ramifications of the Derna catastrophe (11 to 100 thousand deaths) will inevitably result in a sizeable article (probably larger than the current 'Storm Daniel'. Not to mention the lack of dam maintenance 'since 2002'. Twang (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The floods are essentially the only reason this storm is notable (as an event that will presumably have sustained coverage) and consequently comprise the main focus of this article. The dam bursts are inseparable from the storm as it stands. Readers will expect to find the most salient info here and shouldn't have to click through to another page to read it. And as others have said, there isn't enough content to justify two articles.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed The scale of this catastrophe and its concentrated effect on one small city demand a separate page. I came looking for an article on the Derna flooding and it's a subtext in an event that would be unremarkable without Derna. Galerita (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technically I believe it won’t qualify as a TC since it occurred north of the Tropics. Borgenland (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how it works. Some met students ik classify it as a TC/STC but no agency has called it anything other then a medicane or ETC thus far HavocPlayz (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a medicane a shortened form for a storm in that area? Borgenland (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after this catastrophe, the WMO will finally get their act together and empower an agency to warn on these storms. There isn't any official agency to warn on them at this point. Numerous sources (including one already cited) stated it became a subtropical storm. Tbh they are right because an ETC isn't going to wrap a convective band like what was seen on satellite imagery. Noah, AA^Talk 14:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several self-published sources by a scientist with some citations. Not a lot of them, though, so unsure if they make him reliable for this claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was most definetely tropical - warm core reached to the upper levels of the atmosphere as analysed per CIMSS, ASCAT showed 45kt winds with no associated fronts and a compact core with the strongest winds tied directly to the LLC under bursts of -60c tops. It defo had fully tropical characteristics. We do not have an official source for pretty much anything in the med since it's under like 20 agencies, but i'm almost certain sooner or later we'll get a report on its meteorological history Ikethecatto (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some Meteorologists also called it Medicane on Twitter. So that makes it either a tropical or subtropical Storm. Which is also kind of obvious when you look at it on satellite images. But what i believe doesn´t matter.

So here is Özden Terli, German Meteorologist https://twitter.com/TerliWetter/status/1701481722687201317

The Swiss Agency for Meteorology https://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/ueber-uns/meteoschweiz-blog/de/2023/09/tief-daniel.html (though with wrongly translating Medicane into "strong mediterranean low")

Karsten Schwanke, German Meteorologist, also called it Tropical Storm https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1701680859856687557

Its not the best Proof, but good enough to continue calling it Tropical in the Article. One Day an Analysis of the Event will appear by a bigger Meteorological Service, and i have no doubt they will call it Tropical. 2A02:810B:1040:5230:D647:A14F:301B:C126 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with this, it was most certainly tropical. Ikethecatto (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, KNMI did drop all fronts and mark Daniel as a TC on its weather maps and I do have the image. However, I can't seem to find the image on archive.org or the KNMI website and the image is copyrighted so we can't upload it :/ RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's convective structure is typical of a tropical storm (50kt T3.5 dvorak).. warm core, convection in the center, outflow band and no fronts. Yes, I doubted the subsequent weakening, but as it approached Libya the storm drew in dry, sand-laden air that inhibited convection. We are used to seeing classic TCs in tropical areas and loaded with moisture on all sides. Many persist in defining it as subtropical or tropical-like. This once again hinders consistent classification and resulting alarms. Mediterranean Tropical Storm #DANIEL is the tropical cyclone that has caused the most victims in the world in the last years. The Mediterranean Sea needs an consistent official cyclone agency. Years ago we discussed the fact that until a tropical cyclone has created a disaster over the Med. no one would take care of it. Now it has happened. I hope that the WMO will put some agency that tropical and subtropical cyclones in the Mediterranean sea are monitored and classified as consistently as in other basins of the globe. Since the 1990s, informal terms such as "Tlc" or "Medicane" have caused damage by making the population and also many scholars believe that these storms are similar, but not the same. It's wrong. Since tropical cyclones have been observed on Sst of 22C and outside the tropic (Alex2016, Vince2005, Grace2009, Pablo2019) it is clear that the tropical transitions that occur over the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean are exactly the same thing. But the population remains reluctant to talk about tropical cyclones and therefore prefers to define them as subtropical or hybrid. Sometimes they're really subtropical but other times they're really tropical (Leucosia1982, Callisto1983, Celeno1995, Cornelia1996, 01MRolf2011, 01MIanos2020, 01MDaniel2023 and others. Daniele Daniele italy (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Expert forum of Storm2k for Daniel's develop and tropical classification: https://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=123646&sid=9042e2ce14358254eac67c7ee580acf8&start=60 Daniele italy (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be emphasized, personal classifications of this system are not allowed. Wiki needs reliable sources which will come from agencies, news with clarification or quotes from weather agencies, and peer reviewed studies. Even as a degreed meteorologist I cannot classify this system as it violates original research policy. Same goes for those inserting own track maps of the system. The only track we have is by agencies tracking the system by their routine duties, which is why the UK met office track is currently posted. Until credible, none original research, material is posted or found, we cannot allow OR to be featured. Supportstorm (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storm2k should not be mentioned here ever. That place is filled with, how do i put this? Weenies? Downcasters? Everything in-between? HavocPlayz (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, it is not that rare for a mid-latitude cyclone to enter tropical transition, transforming into a tropical or subtropical storm. Many tropical cyclones have non-tropical origins. Only in the Mediterranean do we find difficulty in classifying cyclones by proposing informal names such as "TLC" and "Medicane". Not being used to classifying these as tropical or subtropical cyclones like the rest of the globe, we prefer informality rather than globally coherent classifications. This Is wrong. Daniel for me Is a Tropical storm just before landfall over Libyan coast. This analysis by meteorologist Herinc David is precise and consistent: http://zivipotty.hu/daniel_202309.html?fbclid=IwAR0uQoHQrwDjY6eGeYadOoGRuLksp3eIWnAqMWtyFmpEzRCY1N8etF6axCw Daniele italy (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with Daniele, as well as his sourcing of the article by Henric David, a well known meteorologist who worked with EUMETSAT due to his work on mediterranean TCs. 83.1.242.18 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose the usage of the article as a source. Everything in it is well written. I gave it a glance over but will give it a good read later today after i finish school. HavocPlayz (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we put relief efforts in a separate chapter? There is an accumulating amount of info from media sources esp in Libya and I'm not sure if it could all be inserted into the Impact section without looking bloated. Borgenland (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they go in aftermath Noah, AA^Talk 15:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some details of the relief efforts that could be included. "“We actually need teams specialised in recovering bodies,” said the mayor of Derna, Abdulmenam al-Ghaithi. “I fear that the city will be infected with an epidemic due to the large number of bodies under the rubble and in the water.” Lutfi al-Misrati, a search team director, told Al Jazeera: “We need bags for the bodies.”" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/14/libya-floods-appeals-for-body-bags-disease-fears-northeastern-flooding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.231.27 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneOnyx Multiple sources say that the missing count is 10,000. Not sure where you got 100,000.

CNN

ABC

AP

Grave8890 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/north-africa/1694516394-storm-daniel-leaves-thousands-dead-in-libya-many-more-thousands-missing. This was an English translation of an Arabic article that was used as a citation in the impact section. Personally I do have reservations on its reliability given that it is easy for people including journalists to stumble on zeroes. Borgenland (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about you, but I feel like using reliable English sources would be better than using the English translation of an article. But that's just my opinion :)

Jokes aside, it's much more likely that the translation is incorrect or the author made a mistake. Grave8890 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally in Arabic. When I checked later it was replaced by the English version which still had 100k. Borgenland (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's most likely an error. Grave8890 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if the official meant to say displaced instead of missing. It seems like the 100K figure came from one person. PaulRKil (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is that sources say 20,000 may be dead which negates the 10k missing figure. Noah, AA^Talk 14:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources that state 20,000 may be dead.

Could you possibly link your sources for this information? Grave8890 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source for the possible 20K dead: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/africa/2023/09/13/libya-flooding-before-and-after-satellite-images-reveal-scale-of-disaster/ Undescribed (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action would be to wait for more information. Grave8890 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/13/libya-flood-death-toll Noah, AA^Talk 17:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I suppose I read incorrect information. CycloneOnyx (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See my comments on the SE Europe counterpart article. Other wise take no bother. Ema--or (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article infobox states that Daniel is part of the 2023–24 Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone season. There is no such thing as a "Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone season". There is a 2023–24 European windstorm season, which Daniel is not part of. A Google search for the term "Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone season" gives exactly one result, namely this Wikipedia article. The information may have been added under the false assumption that those seasons are not clearly defined terms. Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved... Just removed the whole thing. Noah, AA^Talk 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every prior medicane article that we have includes this text. Even if the dates for the "season" are not defined, by that logic it's not a member of the windstorm season either by virtue of being off-season. It IS a medicane and there is in fact a general season for them. If you wanna change the year, fine, but unless we are removing this text from every medicane article, then it should stay here. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as the original editor said, the only place that even talks about a "Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone season" is Wikipedia. JM2023 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkSide830: I have just removed it again. Before adding it back a third time, please provide either a source that shows why this doesn't constitute WP:OR, or a link to a previous discussion that establishes this wording as a guideline. Just because this is done elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't make it right. We can start a discussion on Talk:Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone whether this should be reworded in all Medicane articles. Renerpho (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) As for the argument to remove the link to the windstorm season: Daniel is officially part of the 2022-23 windstorm season by virtue of its naming by the Israeli government, and that is the only reason the link to 2022–23 European windstorm season exists. I am not aware that a similar argument could be made for the other link. Renerpho (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I BOLDly removed it from all articles since it DOES NOT EXIST... it's pure OR Noah, AA^Talk 02:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good JM2023 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is it necessary to bring up a tongue-in-cheek joke at the top of an article about such a serious topic with such a large death-toll? kuchesezik 11:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuchesezik (talk • contribs)

I was wondering the same thing. Who would really arrive at this page when they meant to go to the other? The hat note might even have been the inspiration for some vandals.Theodore Kloba (☎) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah let's 100% exclude this note. It seems to be put on by vandals and encourages some of the vandalism seen on this article. PaulRKil (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a legitimate hatnote under WP:SIMILAR and WP:HATCONFUSE. The spelling of both article titles is so similar that it would cause confusion to readers. Edge3 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at the page by mistyping, so I think the hatnote is still useful. NM 03:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Stormy Daniels considered a joke now? (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first three entries here. This seems more like a juvenile joke than a legitimate hatnote. WP:SIMILAR doesn't seem to apply because the terms are not the same (see the example and explanation at WP:SIMILAR). WP:HATCONFUSE seems like a real stretch to apply. This would be a double misspelling at the ends of two separated words. "These hatnotes should only be used when the ambiguity exists for a significant portion of the readership." I know that this is a judgment call, but neither misspelling seems very likely (i.e., Stormy Daniels for Storm Daniel or Storm Daniel for Stormy Daniels). Holy (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People can forget that "Stormy" has a "y" at the end, and we recognize that in the current redirect Storm Daniels. All it takes is one additional misspelling, removing "s" from "Daniels", for people to end up at the current article. Edge3 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Storm Daniels be better redirecting to List of storms named Daniel, with a hatnote there? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I've changed the redirect for Storm Daniels and added the hatnote to List of storms named Daniel. Edge3 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted those edits, as the redirect should go to this article, the logical most likely typo, not to a list article of storms named Daniel. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A full reversion would have redirected from Storm Daniels to Stormy Daniels, as it was originally created. But now that Storm Daniels now redirects to this page, I've added the hatnote to distinguish the redirect ({{Redirect-distinguish}}). Edge3 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't meet an appropriate threshold to add the hatnote. PaulRKil (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulRKil: The term "Storm Daniels" is only one misspelling away from "Storm Daniel", and also from "Stormy Daniels". The hatnote is valid under WP:HATCONFUSE (allowing a hatnote from Perl to Pearl). Edge3 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote is only appropriate when the ambiguity is significant, common enough that a significant percentage of readers might be confused. The chances of the double misspelling you are hypothesizing happening (Stormy Daniels for Storm Daniel or Storm Daniel for Stormy Daniels) are slim to minuscule, making a hatnote out of place. Drdpw (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw Actually, my previous comment was referring to a "single" misspelling, not a "double" misspelling. Storm Daniels currently redirects to Storm Daniel, but it could just as easily redirect to Stormy Daniels. The point of {{Redirect-distinguish}} is to help our readers understand that Storm Daniels can equally be a misspelling of either topic. Edge3 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original placement of the hatnote by Vida0007 was done in good faith and certainly not as a "joke;" their contribution history reads to me like a no-nonsense weather editor. I think these accusations of being a "vandal" should be struck as not assuming good faith ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think anyone is trying to make a "joke". Edge3 (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to confirm that it was never my intention to make a "joke" out of this storm. When I made that hatnote, Storm Daniel was already a significant weather event in the Mediterranean. Before it wreaked havoc in Libya, it was already destructive system that drenched Greece and killed several people – Greeks already consider it as their worst storm ever. I made the hatnote because there are people who got confused by the similarity of the names. The original version I made (when the storm's article was not yet published, and it was just a sub-section in the 2022-23 European windstorm article) read as this:

“ "Storm Daniel" redirects here. For the 2019 storm, see Storm Daniel (2019). For the pornographic actress and director, see Stormy Daniels. For other storms of the same name, see List of storms named Daniel. ”

It was later revised to "Not to be confused with Stormy Daniels." when the article went up, which I think is better. Vida0007 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I understand if the hatnote with Stormy Daniels would be removed. As raised by Certes below, some readers may find the inclusion tasteless, given the scale of this tragedy. When I made the original hatnote, the storm had already caused widespread damage but the damage was not yet this devastating, to the point that it has become a full-scale humanitarian crisis. Therefore, I wouldn't mind if it's going to be removed, but I would also be okay if it is going to be retained. (But please, retain the "List of storms named Daniel" one, especially because the said name is slated to be used in the Eastern Pacific next year.) Vida0007 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should not exclude this hatnote because it can be read as a joke and confused with vandalism. That's a problem for the people who named the storm, not Wikipedia. And I think the argument that people will not get here by mistake is presumptuous. Spicemix (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a problem with the parents that named their child "Stormy"? Stormy Daniels even Daikido (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stormy" is her professional name, not the real name given by her parents :-) -- Edge3 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When did Wikipedia let feelings get in the way of ease-of-use? It is absolutely plausible both as a typo and as a misnomer, especially to those whose first language is not English, and therefore there should absolutely be a hatnote to Stormy Daniels. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the double typo (stormY danielS) is highly unlikely, but that one typo is plausible. Thus:

• Stormy Daniels doesn't need a hatnote mentioning Storm Daniel, and vice versa
• Storm Daniels and Stormy Daniel should both be dab pages, with no primary topic, offering links to Stormy Daniels and Storm Daniel. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove hatnote as unnecessary clutter. As Rosbif says, that combination of two typos is unlikely. Some readers may also see it as a rather tasteless joke, even if added in good faith. Certes (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14#Stormy Daniel. I would suggest that consensus is sought there, rather than here. --woodensuperman 13:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Woodensuperman That discussion at RfD is for single misspellings, while in this thread is to figure out how to resolve double misspellings. Edge3 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A double misspelling is too unlikely to be hat-note worthy. You'll note in the discussion I link above, most editors are suggesting that even the single misspelling is unlikely. Are you seriously suggesting that a reader could get the two articles confused in the search box? --woodensuperman 15:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you seriously suggesting that a reader could get the two articles confused in the search box? Yes I am. We even have another user who admitted above that they arrived at this page via a misspelling. I'm a native English speaker, and when I saw this article on the Main Page, my very first thought was that even I could get the topics confused. We're probably biased because Wikipedia editors tend to be well read and better at spelling than our readers. We have to remember that Wikipedia serves the reading public at large, not just the users who contribute to this project. Edge3 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is funny, but is also widely inappropriate, therefore I vote to oppose the inclusion. Daikido (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be funny, but to be helpful, especially to those with a not-as-great grasp of English. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not great at english either. people who make a mistake can just retype what they were looking for in the search field again. no one is going to go "oh today i wanted to learn more about hte life of the pornography actress whom i've just watched. what's this? an article about a storm that killed thousands of people in libya? well snap, guess i'll just have to read this instead!" Daikido (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English was not my first language, and I don't struggle with differentiating the two articles and Wikipedia is a multi-language site meant to inform readers, not necessarily help them learn a language. The hatnote seems to be in bad faith and regardless of it, I think it gives undue weight to an American figure who is the subject of a political scandal to be at the top of a natural disaster in another country. PaulRKil (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of WEIGHT or anecdotal evidence here, but by plausibility and we already have users here stating that they have found this article by error. We've already established that it was a good-faith addition so please don't double down on the WP:AGF vio. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a single user in this thread indicate they got here by mistake. Only a handful of people are insistent on keeping it. The user who originally added it did it in good faith but conceded that it wouldn't be a relevant hatnote anymore. PaulRKil (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That means it's plausible as a typo/misnomer. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The fact that one user publicly admitted to a misspelling is noteworthy, since it means that there are probably much, much more readers who made the exact same mistake. Edge3 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the Wikipedia standard. One reader is far, far from "a significant percentage of readers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The remnants of Storm Daniel struck Israel on Sept. 13, causing widespread flooding. Here is a reference in the local press. It did not cause the kind of damage that it caused in Libya or Greece, but it was definitely not "fully dissipated" by Sept. 12. Perhaps "fully dissipated" should be changed to "post tropical"?

EDIT: Actually, the first part of the sentence seems to imply that the storm became post-tropical earlier. So perhaps just delete the part about dissipation. Wow, we really need something like the NHC for the Mediterranean basin. So little clear information available here. StormWillLaugh (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Having followed the system closely since it was just a "model-advertised" storm, Daniel ceased to exist as a tropical cyclone on 11 SEP, with its remnant circulation crossing Egypt on the 12th and reaching Israel on the 13th. The problem here is, since no RSMC exists that could have officially designated it as a "Tropical Cylone" (IMO it obviously became one), can we call it "Port-Tropical" in the article? Hopefully this tragedy is the catalyst for the WMO to get the ball rolling on making this much-needed change. AJC3fromS2K (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a problem with this line ("Because of the storm's short-lived and sudden nature, storm preparations were minimal") ever since it was added. It's misleading to say that the storm was sudden and short-lived when it lasted about 9 days. Yes the onset of the Lybian flooding was sudden and the event itself relatively short-lived, but if I'm understanding it correctly, a dam failure exacerbated flooding in and around the wadi where so many of the deaths occurred. Also, I believe part of the reason for the lack of preparation is that Daniel made landfall a full day earlier than it was forecast to by model guidance from as little as 24 hours beforehand, and perhaps whatever agencies/entities may have been tracking, issuing forecasts/warnings/advice for it. AJC3fromS2K (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO what we are talking about is not just unusual and also deadly but is also a thing in itself. If a landslide killed 20,000 people in the same city as a result of a volcano explosion we'd have a separate article, you wouldn't hide that deep into the article about the volcano itself. Daikido (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A specific dam failure that kills more than 10,000 people is a notable event in and of itself, without question. The storm itself was relatively minor, but Storm Daniel killed so many people because of the failure of infrastructure. The dam failures were clearly a manmade disaster. For that reason, they deserve an article in and of themselves. If this were to happen in a developed country it would have an article by now. Narayansg (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. DPdH (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this pushes through, I believe Derna dam failures is more grammatically correct. Borgenland (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, I've changed the title to your version. Daikido (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That is an unfair comparison since a storm only happens once and does not exist before or after a brief time period, unlike a volcano. We already discussed this and said it would be ridiculous to remove the main thing that makes this storm notable from the article. It would leave little else.

Noah, AA^Talk 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually disagree. Not only do you need to go to the bottom of the article to read the main thing right now, but we can always leave a shorter summary in this article about the disaster while leaving a Main Article-type template at the top of the subsection leading to the standalone article about the dam collapse.

Also as it stands now this is the second deadliest dam collapse in history (after the chinese one in '76) and it has all the chances of becoming the deadliest. Would be kind of weird that the deadliest in some category would instead redirect to an article about the storm instead. Btw that Chinese collapse was also caused by a typhon. But the typhon and the dam collapse are separate articles. Daikido (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that's inappropriate as well because the typhoon Nina article is left with almost nothing other than it killed X in the dam failures. Literally 10 kb markup which is piss poor considering how many people died and how well-documented that disaster was. Splitting this off will damn this article to the same fate. Sometimes it's better to just not split off articles. As we said above, wait for this to grow and become large before proposing a split. It's nowhere near the appropriate prose size for a page split yet. Noah, AA^Talk 14:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article already relates to incidents outside of Libya Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The dam failures are not notable or destructive enough to justify its own page. They were really only the cherry on top of Storm Daniel.

Not to mention that the page would likely be very barren. It's just better to include it here imo. Grave8890 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Daikido, still early but I think the collapse of the dam is significant enough to warrant an article of its own. - Rockin (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is enough content to split, I'd say, given the size of the Libya section. There is very clearly backstory present that's not directly tied to the storm, and even if it all was, we could still split. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose — Per WP:AS. The section that is wanting to be split is not large at all. In fact, a word counter says it is only 1,000 words at the time of edit. The section size counter at the top of the talk page indicates the section is only 26,000 bytes and the article is only 65,000 bytes. No clear reason to split a fairly small section and create a WP:CONTENTFORK. In a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, one could look at Hurricane Idalia, which is a notable hurricane from 2 weeks ago, which has a Wikipedia article roughly the size of this one. Using Idalia as an example, I wouldn’t be opposed to a new section in the article (i.e. “Dam failures” under the Libya impacts section, but there is truly no reason to split a section with only 1,000 words up into a completely separate article. The United States impact section in Hurricane Idalia’s article is roughly the same size as the Lydia impact section in this article. Just split it into a new section, not new article. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While they are significant, the article is fine as it is, and similar talks about separating the disaster into a separate article have since been disagreed on. Quake1234 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think there is an enough content, and the disaster is huge! But the article name could be 2023 Derna Floods. Remember that while floods took place on Sunday 9/10, the first dam collapsed on Monday 9/11 about 2:15 am.--Maher27777 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comparing this to Idalia or Freddy is unfair given the scale of the disaster. A better comparison is the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure which collapse from influence from Typhoon Nina. Banqiao has its own page and so should the Derna dams.

Teutonkahmun (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which alone should be avoided in discussions. Do you have a policy-based reason as to why this should be split off, since every situation needs to be assessed individually? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Two-Sense Comment — I’m going to copy/paste a comment I made in a split discussion from yesterday (no idea why the split discussions are happening like every 12 hours, but nonetheless, the point remains the same):

“So, what I would say is this: If users truly believe a floods article [or dam failure article] should exist, create a draft article but do not rush the article. In the exact opposite idea of WP:RUSH, which is to not rush to delete an article, given the consensus [above] to keep the floods in this article (plus the technical content fork merge due to this article being featured on ITN right now), users shouldn’t rush to create a floods article and rush to split it out of this article. In the draftspace, you can duplicate text and expand it. After Storm Daniel (this article) is out of ITN (probably a week from now), if a floods draft article was started and good enough, a discussion could occur as to whether or not the draft article is good enough to split from this article. But on a technical side, Storm Daniel is the main topic (way more the main topic for flooding in Libya right now than floods from the Dams), so the ITN recognized article should be kept together as long as it is on ITN. Cheers!”

So, if users think it is notable enough to have an article, rather than a split discussion on an ITN (main page linked) article, create a draft and once that draft is good enough quality, do a split discussion using that draft as the reason for the split. Don’t rush to move that draft to mainspace and then argue that it needs to be split now since it has an article (exactly like the situation earlier in this article’s history, where a floods article was merged into this article). Take your time, create a good draft, then present your reasoning for the split using that good-quality draft article, which could be moved into mainspace once consensus forms for it.

I commented earlier with my !vote (oppose to new article), but I should point out that this seems to be at least the 3rd split discussion since this article’s creation and there currently is 0 consensus for a split. Create a draft then use the draft as the reasoning, not that “It needs to be split now because it is more notable” style of reasoning, when consensus seems to be split right now. That’s my full two-sense. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Draft:2023 Libya flood. fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There has been much public anger about the dam collapses and there is a lot of history behind it, so I think it deserves its own article. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Story can be well told in this article and a new page would be an unnecessary content fork. See other user's reason's above for further reasoning. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do you guys have nothing better to do with your time lol ? 2A00:23C8:B11B:8801:2148:B0DA:245B:3898 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. An article describing the dam collapses isn't really necessary in my opinion, and I think it's perfectly fine with the Storm Daniel article. Plus, that section isn't too long to warrant a separation for the dam collapses; if we create an article focusing on that it'll violate WP:CONTENTFORK. However, I agree with WeatherWriter above on having a new section on the existing Storm Daniel article dedicated to the dams itself; this is the option that I rather have than having its own article. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Again, if you split out the libya details this article will be pretty bare bones, so we will be left with two small articles instead of one medium-sized article. There is no doubt the dams are a huge deal but as a direct result of the Storm, a section on them is sensible to have in this article. Yeoutie (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The dam collapse was caused by Storm Daniel so this should be the main article. I don't see any reason for two articles. Johndavies837 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or actually, I have a question: If this proposal pushes through, would the contents of the proposed dam failure article be enough to have it stand on its own? I mean, could it be something like the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure article (which provided an extensive historical background as to why the structural failures happened)? Vida0007 (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we move it quickly (like today) while thjeres still interest I am 99% positive it will be. I'd myself love to edit the article but only once it's separated, editing the subsection is umanageable, it's already too big and is in urgent need of being separated into different smaller subsections (background, the collapse itself, the aftermath, etc) Daikido (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support What happened in Derna is just huge, We are talking about 1/5 of the city' population that is probably dead, an event that will leave many wounds. I think a good comparison would be hurricane Kathrina, there is both an article for the hurricane and for the effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.--Kimdime (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell that the only reason we are even havign this discussion is because this has happened in Libya. Had it occured in the US, or France, or even the Ukraine, there'd have 1000% been an article about the Derna catastrophe separate from the typhoon one. Daikido (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a lot more info out there if it happened elsewhere. There would likely be enough content to justify a standalone article. That isn’t the case here yet. I’m not sure why you and others are hasty to split when policy advises against being that way. Article rot is a big issue and the more splits that take place, the worse it gets. Noah, AA^Talk 09:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but you can't possibly argue that there isn't enough info as is to make an article. Hell, if people wanted to there's enough to make a good article imo, certainly one that'd be bigger and more detailed than most articles on this encyclopedia. Daikido (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZERULE says there isn’t enough content here for a split. What most people have been saying here is to expand this first and then split once it’s large enough. Noah, AA^Talk 10:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your link says this for articles bigger than 60 kilobytes: Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

The article right now is 73 kilobytes big. Hell, the subsection about Libya in the section about impact is 30 kb alone. Daikido (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely, it says readable prose size. What you are referencing is the wiki markup which is entirely different. Noah, AA^Talk 11:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Bytes: 16,912

Characters: 16,858

Words: 2,693

This is why it shouldn't be split. SIZERULE is referring to the readable prose. Once this gets between 40-50k, that's when a split should be considered if it is needed. The best thing to do here would be to start dividing up Libya into subsections. Noah, AA^Talk 12:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, Hurricane Leslie (2018) has 33,272 bytes of prose and it hasn't been split. The article is not too large and simply has more subsections as were needed. I believe the same course needs to be taken here. We only divide up an article once there's an excessive amount of information that would require a big hierarchy of several levels of subsections to handle it all. This is clearly just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Noah, AA^Talk 12:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is just becoming odder and odder to not have an article about the second deadliest dam failure in history. I see the rationale but ther is no doubt there will be enough material to create a strong independent article while leaving enough content in the storm Daniel article. It's ok to not tightly stick to the rules when the potential is crystal clear.--Kimdime (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size is but one criterion for splitting a page. The other criterion is content relavance. The only requirement then is notability of the offshoot topic. fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support Is noteworthy enough for page of its own and the content has grown and will doubtlessly grow more. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• omg obvious strong support like the op says the scale of the consequences justifies a separate article Johnfreez (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The section is simply too short to warrant an article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now; give it time and then a if a split becomes warranted in future it should take the title Effects of Storm Daniel in Libya in my opinion. Buttons0603 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now and if a split becomes warranted then sure. Criticalus (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now as well. I made up my mind: once the Libya effects/Derna dam failures section would be too wordy and too long to read, that is the only time it should be split from this one; as of this writing, that is not yet the case. However, if/when that occurs, I would be okay for either "2023 Derna dam failures", "Derna dam failures", or "Effects of Storm Daniel in Libya" to be the article's title. I would also be okay with Criticalus' proposal to make a redirect for it, but I think there should be a draft too, if that suggestion would be followed. Vida0007 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I have been helping rearrange the article into subsections and realized that separating the dam failures and/or other matters involving Libya would severely gut and structurally compromise the mother article into incomprehensibility, especially since the Preparations and Aftermath section have at this moment exclusively contained content regarding Libya. Borgenland (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The dam collapse is notable enough to merit its own article, which as part of the split should include more background information about the dams themselves and the geography of Derna that contributed to the magnitude of the large death toll. And also in the storm article a good brief summary of the key details of the catastrophe should exist (not just a header and a link). Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An article is needed. Sgnpkd (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The discussion about the length of the articles is missing the forest for the trees. The article should be split as a WP:CONTENTSPLIT because the Derna dam failure and Storm Daniel are two distinct topics that are both independently notable, and I think clearly meet the guidelines for a content split. The storm and the dam collapse are related because the flooding set the conditions for the dam collapse. But the bulk of the reporting handles the dam failure as an infrastructure failure with political and engineering causes, not just a weather event. 1975 Banqiao Dam failure is a separate article from Typhoon Nina (1975) - the article for Nina notes that the typhoon "triggered the Banqiao Dam collapse." That's the correct treatment - two distinct though related events. Jsfigura (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that citing Nina/Banqiao Dam as an example of what to do falls foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Buttons0603 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not arguing for a split because the Nina/Banqiao Dam articles treat it that way, I am arguing for a split because the article clearly meets the guideline for a WP:CONTENTSPLIT.

  The guideline in WP:OTHERSTUFF is to avoid arguing for keeping or deleting an article based on the existence or non-existence of other articles "because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article". That's not the situation here. The essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments notes that "When used correctly, these [other stuff] comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes"

  I'm mainly using the Nina/Banqiao Dam articles as an example of the proper treatment. Broadly, I don't see what the issue is in using a good article example as a supporting argument for a split. This usage doesn't fall afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF Jsfigura (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split is justified if there is enough to put in the split out article, as both are notable incidents. (With summary section in this article). Also no rush, it can be done any time, and there is likely to be more content about the dam as time goes by. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. There have been quite a number of articles on North African affairs which have been started and then not updated... I am thinking mainly of ones to do with migrant disasters, but overall, editors don't seem to be so interested or informed or numerous or whatever to continue editing once a topic fades away from the headlines. Best path is to fill out current article, create a draft, and situate it in a more general context, starting with a more general title eg 2023 Derna flood disaster. The dams collapsed because of dysfunctional management amid anarchy. The city was under siege not so long ago. The article should be about that. But not clear to me that many editors want to take up the challenge. TGcoa (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, because notability dictates whether a subject deserves its own article, and the 2023 Libya flood (or 2023 Derna flood or 2023 Derna dam collapse) clearly does. I'd suggest adopting summary style and leaving behind, in Storm Daniel#Libya, an automatic excerpt of the new article's lead. fgnievinski (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support for split (with summary section in this article) per OP and various previous supporting comments (Narayansg, DementiaGaming, Kimdime, DPdH, Sgnpkd, Fgnievinski). Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• IMPORTANT NOTE: A user created Derna dam collapses, which has been subsequently nominated for deletion as a WP:CONTENTFORK. This discussion was linked in the AfD nomination reasoning. (Courtesy note/alert for users involved in this discussion). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• FURTHER NOTE: The Derna dam collapses AfD discussions were withdrawn by the proposer who accepted a consensus to 'keep'. However, full procedural closure has not happened. Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC) (corrected, Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

  I've requested closure. fgnievinski (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have undone the content split. There really isn’t a consensus at the AfD and the discussion should stay in one place, here (because that’s where it first started). @WeatherWriter: Please refrain from further assessment of consensus; you were too rushed and incorrect with this instance.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narayansg: I fail to see how you could've read this discussion as a consensus to split. Your content split was premature.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While I agree that the split was premature given the fact that the discussion was ongoing, i think it's not useful to "undo the content split". There is a deletion discussion, better to wait for a conclusion. Kimdime (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How come the death toll in Derna (allegedly 8000) is now higher than that reported in the entire country (last reported at 6000)? May I reiterate that the same source mentions 5,300 dead further down and none of them refer directly to the count in Derna. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, these are the conflicting passages from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/libya-floods-latest-updates-derna-bodies-aid-rcna104792:

Floodwater swept the living away, and on Wednesday it was washing bodies back onto the shores of eastern Libya faster than the devastated city of Derna could bury them.

It was a struggle to even count them.

Libyan officials on Wednesday put the number of deaths at 8,000 and said 10,000 people are missing.

Thousands still missing in Derna

The eastern Libyan port city was destroyed beyond recognition when two dams burst on the Wadi Derna River during a storm this week, causing waves 23 feet high to rush through the town and into the sea.

A total of 5,300 people had been confirmed dead in the floods so far, the Ministry of the Interior of Libya’s eastern government said. But aid groups and officials have said that some 10,000 people are missing, also feared dead either beneath the wreckage of homes or lying somewhere in the floodwaters. Borgenland (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A BBC liveblog now says a total of 11,000 dead nationwide. But since some editors don't like liveblogs, I'm waiting for a decent article to come out. See https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa-66805748

Borgenland (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's a RS nonetheless. It shouldnt matter one bit. Noah, AA^Talk 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally incorporated it. Now it remains to be seen how many of them were from Derna actually. That previous 6,000 reference could be outdated. Borgenland (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are 11,300 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/libya-floods-death-toll-derna-rcna105001) Onesgje9g334 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering 99% of the damage was focused on Libya, there's no reason to call the article "Storm Daniel."

Calling it "Storm Daniel" implies that the storm hit and badly damaged multiple countries. Not only that, but most news sources refer to it as "Libyan Floods." Grave8890 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Even if it ONLY impacted Libya, the name of the storm is still "Daniel", and even most RS that focus on the floods will note the name of the storm as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even though Cyclone Nargis 99% affected Myanmar, the article is not called "2008 Myanmar floods", for example. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the death toll is really higher in Libya (due to the dam failure) it affected the lives of hundred thousand people in Greece , Bulgaria and Turkey ( especially Greece ). The damages economically costed more than 2-3 billion in those balkan countries. So it cannot be named libya floods since it was not only in Libya. 2A02:85F:9AE3:1E6A:4064:6922:543E:39F (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with repliers points; it should be called "Libyan Floods" if they ONLY affected Libya, which is not the case here. Greece was slapped quite hard by Daniel - being their costliest storm afaik - which I'd say is more than enough to keep it as Storm Daniel. CycloneOnyx (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sources cite the cause as Storm Daniel even while referring to this as the Libyan Floods in their page titles. Noah, AA^Talk 13:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This storm was also among the worse in Greece's history.^[1] --Marc Kupper|talk 05:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs a table to contain the casualties (deaths, injuries, missings, and total) for each and total affected countries. Because it's hard to find them by reading multiple parts of the article. Aminabzz (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 September of 2023 another dead person was found in Greece making the count of the dead 16 and another person is missing ( some info claim more but I cant verify their authenticity ) https://www.rosa.gr/koinonia/kakokairia-daniel-taftopoiithike-i-soros-tis-32xronis-afstriakis-sto-pilio-stous-16-oi-nekroi/

https://www.efsyn.gr/ellada/koinonia/404008_i-niopantri-aystriaki-16o-thyma-toy-daniel-sti-thessalia

https://www.bankingnews.gr/index.php?id=696057 2A02:85F:9AE3:1E6A:4064:6922:543E:39F (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Storm Daniels has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Storm Daniels until a consensus is reached. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Daniel redirect also added to discussion (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently mentions a suggested split (into Storm Daniel and Derna dam failures), but does not link to a discussion, and no rationale has been provided. Where do we vote? Renerpho (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be under here in this talk page. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the track map list all gray triangular points signifying it was an extratropical cyclone of “unlisted” intensity at each point. At one point, there was a track map depicted its intensity as both an extratropical and subtropical cyclone at various points in time. Why was that removed considering its status and potential notability as a subtropical Medicane. 35.130.105.90 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was WP:OR produced by an editor who didn't list the source. Noah, AA^Talk 13:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t a “storm” it was a cyclone. TCfanssos (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was formed during the 2022–23 European windstorm season, where each storm is named as “Storm (Name)”. No different in this circumstance either. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What it was is not for us to decide. Reliable sources, including the Israeli Met Office who named it, refer to it as "Storm Daniel". Buttons0603 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Biographies Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

• Yes per WP:HATMISSPELL. This is entirely plausible as a typo/misnomer to an average reader, thus making the convenience and objective ease-of-use functions of the hatnote outweigh subjective concerns of being a "joke" (we've already established that the original addition of the hatnote was done in good faith). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per WP:HATCONFUSE. There is a substantial risk for confusion between Stormy Daniels and Storm Daniel, and such hatnotes "are typically used when readers have misspelled their desired title". At least one user in the thread above stated that they arrived at this page via a misspelling, so it is reasonable to conclude that many, many more readers have done the same. Also consider that Wikipedians tend to be well read and better at spelling than the average reader. The hatnote would enable us to better serve everybody. Edge3 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, even with auto-complete and tiny spelling differences. No need to omit the hatnote just because it's neither appropriate nor confusing enough to you. Actually, I don't see inappropriateness in such distinction. Also, I don't think many readers will tell the difference between two topics without informing readers what the topics are about. --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No Humorous, but I highly doubt there's substantial risk for confusion between this storm and Stormy Daniels. Some1 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that there's a discussion about this above at Talk:Storm_Daniel#"not_to_be_confused_with_stormy_daniels". Notifying the participants in that discussion about this RfC: @Kuchesezik, Theodore Kloba, PaulRKil, Northern Moonlight, All in, HolyT, Moscow Mule, Drdpw, Vida0007, Spicemix, Daikido, Certes, and Woodensuperman: (did not ping those who already !voted above) Some1 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Also unlike other editors I don’t see where the humor is. NM 22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. We can't assume sophisticated knowledge of current affairs in readers, or faultless command of English. Spicemix (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is my belief that it is a bad faith addition and that nothing warrants its inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. it can genuinely be confusing--Kimdime (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT : the separate DAB page that was just created is a convenient solution--Kimdime (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It confused me at first even, there's no doubt in my mind this could confuse numerous others and hence needs to be distinguished. ChocolateAvian (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because a separate DAB page is both justified (more than two ambiguous subjects) and preferable (for tactfulness in such a sensitive death-related subject). fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not understanding the tactfulness argument, personally. Yes, her initial claim-to-fame was from doing porn, but her involvement in a major US political scandal has also significantly contributed to interest in her. We also have WP:NOTCENSORED to consider. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But she's mentioned in the dab page, Storm Daniel (disambiguation); I don't understand the insistence with a dab hatnote. fgnievinski (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You created that less than an hour ago. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that suffice for speedy closing this debate now that it's moot? fgnievinski (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I would say that creating the DAB page after the discussion started, then using it to oppose the proposal being discussed is disruptive, if anything. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But what problem remains? fgnievinski (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An unnecessary DAB page that could have all entries listed in a hatnote, which takes much less space and requires readers to make one less click to get where they want? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A dab note which has attracted significant rejection previously? Talk:Storm_Daniel#"not_to_be_confused_with_stormy_daniels". There are reasonable objections on the ground of WP:OFFENSIVE. Even if someone doesn't understand the tact of not speaking of p*rn in an article about death. In the case of WP:TWOOTHER, a dabpage trumps dabnote, period. fgnievinski (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a WP:TWOOTHER case, though (TWOOTHER concerns instances where a primary topic is ambiguous with two or more non-primary topics of that same name), but a WP:HATMISSPELL one. The porn actress is the primary topic for Stormy Daniels. It's just that "Storm Daniel," which has its own primary topic (the 2023 European windstorm/medicane), happens to be a plausible misnomer/typo. Period. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also you're misrepresenting TWOOTHER, which says "...it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page...". I don't believe an additional {{distinguish}} below the link to other storms named Daniel requires too much text. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In your opinion, would the new DAB page you just created also moot (at least in part) the current RFD discussion? Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the hatnote to the new DAB page.[2] Thanks for creating it, fgnievinski. Some1 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No because its widely inappropriate and people who get cofnused always have the option of retyping their search request in the appropriate bar anyway. Daikido (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Because Storm Daniel has 2½ other meanings (2019 storm, list of storms, debatably Ms Daniels), a simple hatnote to the new dab is a better solution, despite procedural objections to creating and linking it during this RfC. Certes (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Agree with others the dab page is a better solution given there are several other meanings. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Problem solved with the dab page hatnote. Which might also be a good target for the contentious redirects. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No Per my comments far above. WP:SIMILAR does not apply and WP:HATCONFUSE is a real stretch. Two independent and widely separated typographical errors (each based on a significant difference in pronunciation) are required to confuse the two, and the two topics are in vastly different fields. I also agree with the arguments about having too many hatnotes; the supposed confusion with Stormy Daniels seems less likely than the others. Holy (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No because of the dab note that has already been created. Had that not existed, I might have voted for yes (it might be considered as a WP:HATMISSPELL case), although like what I said in the previous discussion above, I would be okay if it is not going to be included (even if I initially made the original Stormy Daniels hatnote in good faith), out of respect for the still growing number of victims. Vida0007 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. The dab page is a preferable solution here as others have mentioned. CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No per DAB arguments above and policy reasons stated by Holy. From a non-policy perspective, IMHO it's just silly. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs some hatnote the primary source of confusion is the public figure directly. A disambig page is a valid alternative. However, as others have noted there's a lot of censorship, I don't like it, and bluntly stated assumptions of bad faith going around that should probably be reflected on. Wikipedia hatnotes are about ease of navigation and should be placed regarding user ease at a low bar. - Darker Dreams (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that any arguments for removal of the hatnote based purely on "it's inappropriate" doesn't stand up to WP:NOTCENSORED. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - redirect only single word typos to respective page with hatnote redirect notice and also link to DAB page, leave only DAB on both articles. i'll post this here too, i don't know how to crosslink it: it was not my implication that the page/persons is a joke. the concept of forced typo or childish noting and immature pointing out of inappropriate adult topic phrases or words for humor and fooling around (laughing among friends hiding behind a cupped hand), i.e.: 69, 420, "do it", etc. has no place there, be it for clarification or not. i don't think many of the readers would have a grasp of what a redirect and failsafe/safe-net typo for foreigner convenience and only perceive it as a bad out-of-place joke. i also don't believe there would be any form of censorship as it was suggested and it's unreasonable to brand this as such. it's only a rational and simple note to keep in mind that people looking up the disaster (perhaps including those who may have had close ones fall victim to it) might find it insensitive. the only point i was making was that graphic adult entertainment (seen as indecent in half the world) does not go well with a natural disaster. i think it's fair to say more respect is due to all the victims and their families than to the appropriate spelling of the name of a single person (whoever they may be) or to those who would make an inconvenient typo they could get around in just a few extra seconds. i believe that the wording/spelling is clear enough and i support the editors who say the scenario where someone would seek one topic while fully typing in the title of the other is highly unlikely and it does not warrant an additional reminder that there is some chance that it could be a typo after the page contents have already been displayed and can be recognized at a glance. in short: being sensible to where being respectful is more helpful than the conveniencing of a possible but highly unlikely grammatical error by linking to an inappropriate article (even more so, as mentioned - at the beginning of the page) is what the consensus should be.

kuchesezik 22:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: the choice to list Stormy Daniels as an adult entertainer is just one option, and almost certainly the least of her actual notability. Her substantial notability derives from how she has figured into US American political scandal over the last several years and she could easily be identified by that trait by people reasonably searching for her without risking titillation. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, yes to hatnote to DAB: there is no substantial risk for confusion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the number of confirmed dead people is less than this figure, until last night it was 3100 Fathi Seid (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are conflicting sets of authorities making estimates. However, 11,000 is so far the most fit for publishing as it is confirmed by the Red Cross/Crescent, which as far as I’m concerned has not been split into two unlike the Libyan government. Borgenland (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s best to just use estimated casualties at this stage. We will likely never get a realistic confirmed deathtoll as most bodies will unfortunately never be recovered. There are certainly far more than some 3000 deaths. 2A00:23EE:1738:5D1C:E456:4B2B:4C87:BCA6 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OCHA announced that the 11,300 fatality report was a mistake. Libya has only officially confirmed 3,252 deaths. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware. But everyone knows far more than 3000 people are dead. This is all seeming eerily familiar to the 2008 Myanmar Cyclone Nargis and the heavy undercount “official authorities” gave.

There are not 3000 dead. There are 3000 recovered bodies. It is not an accurate reflection of the deathtoll of this storm. 2A00:23EE:1738:5D1C:E456:4B2B:4C87:BCA6 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in many cases like this where there are a high number of casualties, there is usually some sort of coverup to prevent political fallout. We saw this with both Nargis and Maria, among others, and unfortunately we might never know the true death toll here. Even though we all know that the death toll is likely much higher than the 3,252 being reported, that is the official number being provided, so we have to go by that. Undescribed (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s not acceptable to parrot a known false, propaganda figure on an encyclopedia, and it is complicit in covering up and disrespecting the deaths of the victims of this catastrophe.

We can, and should, use the estimated figure of 18-20,000 deaths (which itself is still likely someway shy of the true deathtoll).

This reminds me of the early days of Coronavirus and China’s “official death stats” which still have not been adjusted to reflect reality even to this day. 2.99.95.214 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I agree that the death toll is much higher than 3,252, but it doesnt matter what any of us "believe" to be true. We cannot prove/disprove that the lower death toll is a result of propaganda, even if we believe it is, we have no reliable sources to prove it. Undescribed (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This news article from 3 hours ago states the UN maintians the deathtoll stands at 11,300 and makes reference of thr Red Crescent issuing its own figures and confusion and disagreement over the true toll. It also states the UN says 10,000 remain missing (most undoubtedly presumed dead).

That to me looks like a deathtoll of roughly 21,000.

However I think we have more than enough reliable evidence to strongly suggest the deathtoll is nowhere near 3000, no?

I again stress simply using estimates or stating deaths are currently in the thousands until we get some kind of reliable figures or estimates in the future.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66838559 2.99.95.214 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I agree that the death toll is likely well over 3,000. But we have the estimate of 18,000 to 20,000 still posted in the article. The actual death toll might end up being a little bit higher or lower than that range but I think that it is sufficient for now until we get more clarity. Undescribed (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would suffice, but the added “confirmed” figure just seems unnecessary and misrepresentative. However, I have raised my objections and said my piece.

I guess it’s not too bad with the estimated figure right underneath it like that. 2.99.95.214 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The drastic revision should also be mentioned in the article. Since regardless of the veracity the volume of revision is a notable screwup (for lack of a better term). Borgenland (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this page again. There has just been another wave of obscene edits to this page. Borgenland (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland:  Done for 1 month ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should a clear distinction be made between the GNU and the HoR/GNS when it comes to announcements and declarations? Mind that the only ones issuing numbers so far is the HoR government, not the GNU. Borgenland (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly enough, their no reliable source tell the story of Derna dam disaster on hourly basis! I tried to collect some information based of witnesses of city's inhabitants, and the videos uploaded by them on social networks. Time shown below of some events are approximate.

• Sunday September 10: Storm Daniel struck Libya, including Derna.

2100 hrs:The storm in Derna bacame stronger.

• Monday September 11:

0030 to 0100 hrs: A large amounts of water began to flow through Wadi Derna, but it's still under control.

0130 to 0215 hrs: The bigger dam collapsed, the smaller would collapse soon after. The dam's water is unleashed.

0254 hrs: Floods reached the city, and the frightened residents recorded several videos about it. (This very time is clearly visible on a video recorded by a monitoring camera, showing several cars are drifted).

0447 hrs: Dawn praying. Another video shortly before sunrise showing the floods' water is still flowing through the wadi, but the city's downtown had been already washed out to the sea.

0610 hrs: Sunrise.

Afternoon: The satellite channels (including the Libyan ones) got acquainted about the disaster. This belated acquaintance because the floods has ruined the city's mobile network.

I hope that this information will be founded, and an additional base for this article.--Maher27777 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the five members of the Greek humanitarian mission killed in the road accident on 17 September otw to Derna and the Libyans on the other car count as casualties in the storm? Borgenland (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Storm Daniel be renamed and moved to Storm Daniel (2023). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Storm Daniel → Storm Daniel (2023) – Per Storm Daniel (disambiguation) there are already pages for Storm Daniel (2019) and List of storms named Daniel which include 8 other entries. Making this the primary topic is WP:recentism. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I’m honestly shocked you would even make such an argument when this storm killed thousands and the others were all minor. The argument listed above for the proposed move is obviously flawed.

Noah, AA^Talk 21:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Noah. @Darker Dreams: You very clearly didn't bother to do the research on this situation. Having killed this many people will keep this the primary topic for ages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it possible to oppose without making comments towards the proposer? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. There is need to so strongly criticize the proposer in this way. Edge3 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't feel like it's improper to call out wasting the community's time when they didn't do a few minutes of research.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposer included a citation to WP:Recentism, which shows that they conducted at least some amount of research. Every editor should be able to WP:BOLDLY make a suggestion without fear of backlash. In cases like this, where the requested move is controversial, submitting the RM for community discussion is precisely what the nominator was supposed to do. Edge3 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They didn't do their research. They saw 2023 and automatically assumed recentism applies, which they would not have done after a few minutes of proper research. WP:BOLD doesn't negate the requirement to have WP:CLUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  [Competence is required] does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors ... some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process." ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  09:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CLUE is just an essay, which does not justify such a strongly-worded rebuke against an editor acting in good faith. Edge3 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - This is clearly and obviously WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, having caused the deaths of thousands of people. Also the other Storm Daniel had very minimal effects back in 2019, so I don't know why this is even up for debate. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 01:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC--Kimdime (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose We couldn't define each article if the storm had a date, we defined what the article most recognizable per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HurricaneEdgar 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]