Talk:Cyclone Numa

Do not refer to @MedicaneCentre

@MedicaneCentre looks formal but it is just a completely unofficial Twitter account created in October 2017. Despite keeping providing estimates for Numa, they are not trust-worthy at all, as @MedicaneCentre never provided any solid proof for estimates or observations. Wikipedia should not refer to it unless it changes its policy. 🐱💬 06:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a Twitter account. It's a new organization with their own website as well. It would be okay to use them as a source if we can establish that they are using official data for their releases/advisories. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can create a website, so what? You still have not provided a valid answer, and a trust-worthy source would not be a website without a homepage and hosted by Wikia. If you could prove that it is a newly-established meteorological organisation supported by various national agencies or organisations, please show us.  🐱💬 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved the Greek flood material

I've put the Greek flood material into its own section as the National Observatory of Athens consider Numa/Zeno(n) and Euripedes separate entities.Lacunae (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox areas affected (removal of UK and IE)

I don't think saying extratropical history counts to include in the infobox areas affected is policy or matches with the article contents.

1. Wikipedia is based on notability, Rina/Numa had no notable affects in UK, IE, Tunisia (as far as I know), arguably Fr and Turkey.

2. The article itself says Numa formed east of the UK, and was travelling eastwards/se-wards, unlikely to affect Ireland and UK surely.

3. Meteorological history appears to be largely based on synthesis and user interpretation of FUB synoptic charts.

4. The re-name from Rina to Numa I suspect was influenced by FUB preferring to re-name before it moved over German territory.

5. The nature of these events is that they are formed partially from influences from outside the basin, but typically are reinvigorated in the Med or reform once there, so I think utmost caution should be used with extratropical "affects" external to the Med before being attributed to an article about Meditterranean tropical-like development.

6. The article states this system is notable for becoming a Mediterranean tropical-like system, this clearly delineates the area of affects to the Mediterranean basin and coastal areas.Lacunae (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To be consistent with other tropical, subtropical, or extratropical cyclones, we need to list all of the areas affected. This includes the time that the storm spend as a precursor system, when it was tropical (or at peak intensity), and after the system had weakened to a remnant low or circulating system. Since Numa was already named while it was over the UK (as an extratropical system), this needs to be reflected in the article. Cutting out those areas implies that Numa didn't affect those areas or that the system was never there, which amounts to misrepresentation. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I am not advocating ignoring such details in the body of the article, if they are sourced and notable. But placing the UK and Ireland in the infobox as areas affected is misleading for the reasons I've stated above.Lacunae (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Track map

@Cyclonebiskit: if you get the time would it be possible to produce a track map for Numa a la Cyclone Qendresa please? I would like one to put in the article but can't find one. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)