# Talk:Tropical Storm Bret (1993)

The storm history section of this article is too long and detailed, IMO. Jdorje 01:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I got carried away. Anybody, feel free to summarize a bit. Hurricanehink 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The intro needs to be a little more specific.  The impact is a bit spaghetti and could probably use section headings, except it doesn't have enough info. Jdorje 05:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shoudn't we include Hurricane Greg on this article, since NHC considers them to be the same storm? ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The report on Greg states that Bret dissipated and a new low formed, ergo they're considered separate tropical cyclones but developed from the same overall system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But in both Greg's premilinary reports and early discussions cite it as a direct continuation of Bret. Also, Greg wasn't re-designated mantaining Bret's 08E identity. ABC paulista (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Direct continuation, yes, but that was when Bret reached the eastern Pacific as a tropical depression. That system dissipated and later reformed into Greg, so it wasn't one continuous system like Cesar-Douglas. I'm moving it back. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at the title again, Hink :P YE Pacific Hurricane 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous cases of non-continuous storms like Bret-Greg (that dissipated becoming a low, to regenerate again) that are oficially crossover storms: 

1986's Georgette formed in the eastern pacific, dissipated entering the central pacific and regenerated in the western pacific;
1991's Enrique formed in the eastern pacific, dissipated in the central pacific and regenerated in the western pacific;
2009's Maka formed in the central pacific, dissipated there and regenerated in the western pacific;
2010's Hermine formed in the eastern pacific, dissipated over Mexico and regenerated in the atlantic;
2014's Genevieve formed in the eastern pacific, crossed into the central pacific where it dissipated twice before reforming and crossing into the western pacific, etc.
There are even more cases of cyclones dissipating and reforming in the same basin, being considered to be the same storm: Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Nadine, 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane, Hurricane Joan–Miriam in the eastern pacific, various atlantic storms last year, etc.
Besides, NHC considers that Bret and Greg are the same storm, even giving both the same classification in the eastern pacific (08E). And CPHC agrees with NHC. So I don't see why both shouldn't be included here. ABC paulista (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

To be considered a basin crosser (and thus presented as the same system), "an identifiable center of circulation must be tracked continuously". In this case, "the system had become so disorganized (...) that a single center of circulation could no longer be detected". It's very simple. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate here... Directly from the NHC "Atlantic Tropical Storm Bret (August 1993) became Hurricane Greg in the Northeast Pacific." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC) I get the feeling that Juliancolton and Hink are trying to impose modern day standards on to a system, that took place before the basin crossing name retention rules were changed for ATL and EPAC. NHC quite clearly states in the first discussion on Greg and the last one on Bret, that it would be renamed Greg per WMO Rules which at the time stated that it would be renamed regardless. Also notice on page 2 of the preliminary report that the system regenerated into Greg. However, i would like to see where ABC is finding NHC calling Bret 08E, since it was TD 03(L) first.Jason Rees (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to move it to Bret. Anyway, yes, we know that Bret became Tropical Depression 8E when it reached the Pacific, but that system didn't become Greg. This whole debate isn't about any official WMO or wiki rules. It comes down to what is the best focus for this article. Given that Greg did not reform for several days, and wasn't that interesting meteorologically, then the article should just be focused on Bret, considering that was the damaging one. In fact, I think it is borderline undue weight to include all of the Greg info here, considering there is a perfectly valid place for it in the season article. Cesar-Douglas, Joan-Miriam, Greta-Olivia, and Irene-Olivia all remained distinct tropical cyclones their entire lifetimes, and both storms caused additional impact in Central America (Douglas and Miriam causing additional rainfall, both Olivia's making landfalls). Further, in their TCR, the NHC removed the portion of 8E immediately over the coast [1], and they considered Bret to have dissipated over Nicaragua [2]. So if anything, this is a case more similar to Earl-Frank 04, where it was an Atlantic tropical cyclone that eventually reorganized in the Pacific. As We didn't call the article Tropical Storm Earl-Frank (2004) (nor should we), I think this article is fine where it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Juliancolton, just like Cyclonebiskit pointed out, in the same source that you gave NHC states that Tropical Storm Bret became Hurricane Greg in the Northeast Pacific. And if that rule is so absolute, tell me why Georgette in 1986 is considered a basin crosser since both CPHC and JTWC stated that it didn't maintained a closed circulation while travelling in the central Pacific.
Jason Rees, in Greg's fist discussion NHC states that "TROPICAL DEPRESSION BRET IS MOVING ACROSS EXTREME SOUTHERN NICARAGUA /NORTHERN COSTA RICA...AND IS NOW BEING DESIGNATED TROPICAL DEPRESSION EIGHT-E AS IT HEADS TOWARD THE EAST PACIFIC.
Hurricanehink, NHC considers Greg to be TD 08E, so they are the same storm. They even give points to Bret in the eastern Pacific before reforming as a depression. ABC paulista (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the prelim report? They consider Bret dissipating over Nicaragua. It wasn't a continuous storm. It's no different from Earl/Frank 04. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read. But did you read the discussions and the track charts? Both states that Bret entered in the pacific and became Greg. So, what info should we follow?
And Earl-Frank case is different. They were never considered to be the same storm, but Bret-Greg even received the same designation in the pacific (08E). ABC paulista (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You're focusing too much on what happened 21 years ago in a few brief advisories. This is a debate about what the article should be focused on. You're arguing it should be Greg because they're the same storm, but I don't think that makes sense. Ignore for a second that the NHC called Bret "8E" when it reached the Pacific. If those advisories didn't exist, would you still think both storms should be in the same article? All of the other crossovers had impact on both coasts, but because Bret dissipated over Nicaragua, there wasn't any impact related to a tropical cyclone in the eastern Pacific. Repeating what I said above - they were only considered the same continuous storm for a few months in 1993. Think of this whole debate in terms of article structure. Adding in Greg adds nothing but some meteorology history, which isn't really needed considering the most important aspect of the storm was the devastation in Venezuela. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  22:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I never said that the article should be focused on Greg, that wouldn't be wise and makes no sense. But since Greg was part of the same storm, it should be included here and Greg's inclusion would affect nothing on Bret's impacts (the changes would only affect the infobox and the meteorological section), But, without Greg, this article will be always incomplete and somewhat innacurate.
If NHC didn't called Bret 8E, or called Greg 9E, they would be different storms and should be treated like that, but since NHC treat both as the same storm, we should do the same since we can't go against what is offcial.
Even if the majority of Atlantic-Pacific crossovers caused damages in both basins, the same isn't applied to other crossovers. Cyclone Leon-Eline did no damage outside South Indian basin, the name "Leon" and its history in the Australian basin was included in its article. Cyclone Katrina-Victor-Cindy had the name "Cindy" and its history included in the article, even with Cindy doing absoultely nothing in the South Indian basin. Cyclone Yasi is the same story, etc. ABC paulista (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It was part of the same storm though the same way that Earl/Frank were. I just don't think the Greg portion is needed. Long-lived storms like Katrina-Victor-Cindy exist because of their longevity. Leon-Eline was one continuous system that was the longest lasting SWIO TC. Bret was a distinct, very damaging Atlantic tropical cyclone, that dissipated over Nicaragua. There honestly is no right or wrong answer, but I just feel that there isn't a need to include the Greg portion, given how damaging Bret alone was. You brought up Mitch earlier - if Mitch did all of that damage, and did the same as Bret (dissipated when crossing over, reformed later on), I'd argue the same as Bret, that it should remain just the one article. Adding Greg in just seems like some undue weight for a portion of the MH that is barely related. There can be a quick summary, but I think the summary for Greg should just be in the season article, and not here. The article should focus on the South/Central American impacts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Earl degenarated into an open wave, unlike Bret that mantained a closed circulation with no defined center. So, it's clear that Earl/Frank's case is different from Bret-Greg case.
I still argue that adding Greg here wouldn't change the article's focus, and its inclusion would undo some misleading idea that the article gives, mainly in the infobox, like:
The storm's peak intensity was as a 60 mph tropical storm with a pressure of 1002 mbar (false, it peaked as a 135 mph category 4 hurricane with a pressure of 948 mbar);
The storm died on August 11 (false, it reorganized and lived up until August 28);
The storm existed only in the Atlantic ocean (false, it also existed in both eastern and central Pacific).
I have the impression that if Greg's part of the storm stayed in the Atlantic, without being renamed, it would have been included here without discussion. It seems that all the disagreement in this discussion lies in the fact that Bret crossed into the Pacific and was renamed. ABC paulista (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yea, Bret also dissipated into an open wave. The circulation dissipated over Nicaragua. They say that "a low-level circulation could no longer be clearly identified at that point". If it was in the Atlantic, yea, it'd just be one article, because they would also be considered one tropical cyclone in the best track. That's not the case for Bret and Greg. They're two distinct tropical cyclones related to the same tropical wave. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, don't manipulate the informations. NHC never stated that Bret's circulation dissipated. They stated that it only disorganized to a point that they couldn't detect a single center of circulation and that the low-level circulation wasn't clearly defined, which doesn't mean that a circulation didn't exist (either low-level, or mid-level one). They never stated that "Bret's circulation was disrupted", or "Bret degenerated into a tropical wave". ABC paulista (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Dissipated". Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Dissipated doesn't necessarily means that the storm lost its circulation. 1986's Georgette and 1991's Enrique are prime examples of that. ABC paulista (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
How does this article's situation compare to that of Hermine 10? To be honest, I don't see any clear evidence that the LLC dissipated. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, both degenerated into a remnant and are considered by the NHC as crossover storms. ABC paulista (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That is false. Bret did not degenerate into a remnant low, it dissipated according to NHC, which means yes, it lost its circulation. Greg just formed from the remnants, just like Frank 04 did from Earl, just like Ernesto 12 did with Hector. It's similar to Alma-Arthur in 2008, where the one storm formed, dissipated, and led to the formation of another. However, Hermine was different, as it was a continuous tropical low. That's not the case for Bret-Greg. Therefore, the two storms shouldn't be in one article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Prove that dissipation means lose its circulation. Georgette and Enrique were here to show that you are incorrect.
Earl and Hector were declared tropical waves, but Bret was never declared such. In fact, Bret was called 08E, that later was named Greg. ABC paulista (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hink, back then systems were not declared post-tropical remnant lows like they are now. That term is much newer (early 2000sish). So, we don't have any exact proof it dissipated over land. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Except for the prelim report saying it dissipated. Yes, I know they didn't use remnant lows back then, but that is WP:OR saying that it became a remnant low that survived into the eastern Pacific. ABC, because that's what dissipation means. Your link to Georgette even says that Georgette lost its circulation. And that is exactly the same that happened with Earl in 2004. They all lost their circulation. The difference is that some storms are officially considered the same tropical cyclone even if they dissipate, such as Baker in 1950, Dennis 81, Erin 01, Helene 12, etc. That's how they appear in the best track, which is how we reflect storms in articles and season articles. Bret, on the other hand, is in the pool of storms such as Earl/Frank, Ernesto/Hector, Alma/Arthur, Janet/Unnamed in 1955, etc. Were Bret and Greg from the same overall system? Yes. But were they the same tropical cyclone? No. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, do you have any proof that dissipate means lose its circulation? Before the 2000s dissipation was a much more embracing term, including storms that fell below tropical depression status. And no source here states that Bret lost its circlulation, only became heavly disorganized (it's not uncommom to have a tropical depression without a identifiable circulation center).
And, differently to Earl/Frank, Ernesto/Hector, Alma/Arthur and such storms, I have a proof that NHC considers that Bret and Greg are the same storm.
Finally, I think that Cyclone Wasa–Arthur represents a more similar case to Bret-Greg than the ones you cited. Although Wasa–Arthur stayed in one basin (Bret-Greg existed in three), Wasa caused major damage in the South Pacific basin (just like Bret in the Atlantic), dissipated and reformed a second time (like 08E in the Pacific reformed from Bret), was renamed Arthur (like Bret was renamed Greg) and did no damage in its second life (just like Greg, but Greg was more relevant meteorologically). But Arthur was included in Wasa's article, unlike Greg here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You do not have proof that Bret and Greg are the same storm. It dissipated over Central America! The MWR again says that "a low-level circulation could not be identified", meaning it "dissipated as a tropical cyclone". I agree, it does say that "a remnant disturbance could be tracked westward". Likewise, the EPAC MWR says that "Bret had become so disorganized... that a single center of circulation could no longer be identified". The NHC said they could not identify a circulation, meaning it dissipated. If it was in the same basin, Bret would've been renamed, yes, but it wasn't. Therefore it's in the same boat as Ernesto and Earl.
Further, since I doubt my above comments mean anything to you - what does putting the Greg bit in add? It simply extends the MH to add a lot of info about a marginally related storm that became somewhat strong, but did not affect anyone. Bret on its own was a very damaging storm in South America, one of the worst in Venezuela. Adding in Greg adds some undue focus for what the encyclopedia article should be about. Bret was the important one on its own. And as far as Wasa-Arthur, they never considered Wasa as dissipated, so it's a bad example. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have some proofs that Bret and Greg are the same storm:
NHC stated that Bret became 08E and 08E was named Greg, so Bret = 08E = Greg;
NHC gives a track for the storm between Bret and Greg;
This list states that Atlantic Tropical Storm Bret became Hurricane Greg in the Northeast Pacific, although I don't give much credit for this source;
CPHC also states that Greg was Bret in the Atlantic.
Your sources stated that Bret "dissipated" and "ceased to be a tropical cyclone", but assuming that the cyclone became a open wave is kinda WP:OR, since these statements back then meant that the storm became something below tropical depression status (remnant low, tropical wave, disturbance, extratropical, etc), without NHC specifying what those meant.
Also, NHC stated that a single center of circulation could no longer be identified, what doesn't mean that the circulation itself was nonexistent, so assuming that is WP:OR. Also, Frank was declared a tropical depression without a identifiable COC.
I still don't know how adding Greg would influence in Bret's damages focus, but for a complete (and possible future GA) article, Greg's history is needed.
Lastly, Wasa-Arthur had a more similar history to Bret-Greg than the others you cited, so it's a more valid example. ABC paulista (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's no more OR than saying that Bret and Greg are the same tropical cyclone, since the discussion and that track are both operational. However, look at it another way. If you add Greg in, it creates a different peak intensity and duration, both of which I think are inappropriate and takes the focus away from Bret. Why do you argue that Greg's history is needed for this article to be complete? The main reason there is an article in the first place is because of the impact in South America, right? If that's the case, then that should be the focus, and just a light summary (as it is here) for Greg's portion (which already had a more than adequate summary in the season article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, mantaining the current peak intensity and duration would be like giving false information, because the storm became much stronger and lasted much more than the presented here.
Well, being a crossover storm is itself a very notable event and being that long-lived is also noteworthy, so adding Greg here would only add notability for both the storm and article. Only because the article was created because of Bret's damages, that doesn't meas that we can't add another notable information. ABC paulista (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Bret the TS had a distinct peak intensity, and saying it was a Category 4 would be very misleading. As far as the longevity, four of the days weren't as a tropical cyclone, so that isn't terribly notable, and likewise that its dissipation means it wasn't an actual crossover storm. I'm just imagining what a hypothetical Bret article as a GA would look like, and honestly, I think it just becomes cluttered and unfocused if it includes all of Greg's history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I was not saying that Bret peaked as a Category 4, but the storm Bret-Greg peaked as a Category 4. Just like Cesar-Douglas peaked as a Category 4, like Wasa-Arthur peaked as a Category 2, like Genevieve peaked as a Category 5, and other ones. About the longevity, even if we dig up 4 days the storm still would have lived for 20 days, being among the longest-lived ones.
About the article, even if the focus is about the damage that Bret caused, the article is about the storm itself, so adding more information about the storm would only benefit the article. ABC paulista (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it'd also be improper if the name of the article was Hurricane Bret-Greg, since that implies Bret was a hurricane, which it was not. The article is and should mainly be about the impacts in South America, once done properly. It should focus on the MH in the areas it affected, which is Bret's history. This discussion is getting nowhere though. I don't think I can convince you, and nor you me. I'll admit, Bret did contribute to the formation of Greg. I just don't think that should be included in all of the stats here (the longevity bit is misleading due to the extended dissipation state), nor should there be a complete history on Greg. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Hurricane Joan-Miriam misleading then? Miriam was only a TS in the EPAC. By that logic Hink say a storm became (hypothetically) became strong near Cape Verde), then dissipated due to SAL in the CATL, regenerated into a TS in the WCARB and killed hundreds over Central America, where would the MH be focused? That scenario is pretty much Bret/Greg right there, except the fact that it happened to move into another basin. To be honest, though, I think you're over exaggerating how long Greg's MH would be. It'd be 2 paragraphs or about 5-7kb at most. Most of the article would still be impact. And even if it did make the article unfocused, we could I guess make an MH subarticle for just Bret-Greg. :P I'm not fully convinced that Bret and Greg are the same system, there's technically evidence either way. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
But that scenario hasn't happened. As far as Joan-Miriam, the more notable storm (which was retired) has the proper peak intensity. As far as the additional info, it's just not needed. Since it could go either way, I'm arguing that we shouldn't include it, so it can be focused on Bret. We essentially have a choice, and my opinion is that the article would be better without the EPAC info. The only people coming to the article are likely to be looking for the Bret info, after all. (Yes, they might theoretically be looking for Greg, but IMO that is unlikely).  Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it'd be pretty focused on pretty either way. It's only a 3-4 paragraphs difference and most of the article would still be focused on its Central America impact. To settle the main issue, I think the most reasonable solution is to email the NHC if they are considered the same storm. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I already emailed HRD. There's no need to email NHC, they said it dissipated. And 3-4 paragraphs is a lot of difference, since that's usually the length of some articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  22:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Does being dissipated back then mean no LLC? I take it to assume it was no longer a TC. You have to realize that the term post-tropical remnant low was not introduced to 2002. So, I'm not sure. I just majorly don't buy your argument that included Greg's MH would defocus the article. We're looking at a 30 kb article without it, and a 35kb article with it. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Just like I said earlier, even if Bret didn't became a hurricane, the overall storm (Bret-Greg) became. And Hurricane Joan-Miriam is a similar case since the name "hurricane" can imply that Miriam became a hurricane, which didn't.
And adding Greg here wouldn't influence about Bret's notability, since people that are looking for Bret's info would still find it here without problems, and also would find more info about the full storm.
And even if Bret lost its LLC, that woudln't mean much because we are all aware of the well known case of 1986's Georgette, that lost it's LLC and still is considered a crosssover storm. What really counts is if NHC considers Bret and Greg the same storm. ABC paulista (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The bit about it losing its LLC makes it tricky. The term "losing its LLC" is unclear. Does it mean it lost its closed LLC and became an open wave/trough? Most Atlantic storms do this (in the ATCF file, they are entered with the "DB" position) only to be re-declared for a latter time. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, in Georgette's case is stated that it didn't mantained a closed circulation while travelling in the central Pacific. ABC paulista (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Georgette has to do with anything. That was considered in best track to be the same tropical cyclone. Same with most of the other normal crossovers. The last point in the Atlantic is followed by the first in the Pacific. That is not the case for Bret-Greg, so there's no reason they should be the same article. I'm not sure why you keep saying "full storm" either. Bret was a tropical cyclone that only existed in the Atlantic Ocean. Its remnants later became a different tropical cyclone, so no need to go into such great detail for a storm that, according to the best track, is completely unrelated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just like Bret-Greg, Georgette wasn't a continuous storm. It dissipated shortly after entering in the central Pacific (CPHC only issued 3 advisories), and only regenerated some days after crossing the dateline, thus the last point at CPHC's basin is thousand miles away from the first point after its regeneration. Hermine also had distant last point in the Pacific to the first in the Atlantic.
When I say full storm, I'm talking about Bret and Greg combined. And it's true that Bret's reports stated that it dissipated (whatever it means), but also stated that it reformed and became Greg. And we have the sources I listed above as a backup for this info. ABC paulista (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure why you're mentioning Georgette, as we have the Best Track that considers them one single track. That isn't the case for Bret-Greg, where there are four days missing. That's more time than Ernesto leading to Hector's formation (which had a discussion whether they should be one article, but that was denied). As far as Hermine, its first point in the Atlantic was the exact same point as the last point for 11E in the Pacific. There is no "full storm" or not. Bret was one tropical cyclone along a tropical wave. That storm dissipated, and another storm formed from that same system. It's not the same system. I agree they are loosely related, but not closely enough that they should be in the same article. I don't know why you are so insistent on adding two little paragraphs of information. If all of the discussion on here was an article, the Bret article would be done, and so would the 1993 PHS article, so this whole thing would be a moot point. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if IBTrACS show Georgette in one single track, CPHC considered that the tropical cyclone dissipated and merged with the ITCZ until it reformed in the western Pacific, so it wasn't continuous. The same happened with Enrique, that became a remnant low and only regenerated after crossing the dateline. And both are considered crossover storms, so clearly this case isn't exclusive to Bret-Greg.
As you stated, there was 4 days from the end of Bret and the start of Greg... Big deal! Georgette took 5 days to reform, Enrique took 10 days. KVC took even more, so it isn't a issue at all. And Ernesto/Hector isn't pertinent, since NHC never considered them to be the same storm (unlike Bret-Greg).
About Hermine starting where 11E ended, maybe IBTrACS shows that, but that's not what Hemine's report states, since 11E degenerated as it made landfall and no advisories were issued until Hermine formed. And we have to consider that before 2000 they didn't show the track of a storm when it was below depression status in the reports.
Aaaand, in this I wouldn't give much credit for them in this case. The storms Fifi-Orlene, Greta-Olivia and Cesar-Douglas are shown separated, just like Bret-Greg. So, or all these storms aren't crossovers, or Bret-Greg is also a crossover. 
Finally, I can understand that you think that putting Greg here would only take off the focus of Bret's damages (I don't agree, though), but I don't know why you are so insistent on saying that Bret and Greg are different storms with all the evidence I showed here. And crossover storms are rare, and Atlantic-Pacific crossovers are among the rarest, so it's a very notable event. I would say that it is as notable as the damage Bret caused, if not evem more. And without Greg, this article will be always misleading about the storm's history and intensity. That's why I defend that Greg must be added in the article. ABC paulista (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Georgette and Enrique both have best tracks backing them up as the same system, NHC backs up Hermine and 11E having a continuous track, and they say in their TCR's and prelim reports that Fifi and Cesar crossed over to become EPAC cyclones. They don't do that for Greg. They say Bret dissipated. They are different storms that shared a tropical wave, which sometimes is considered the same storm, but sometimes not (as in this case). You haven't shown proper evidence saying they're the same storm. You just keep arguing that dissipation isn't dissipation, that what it was considered operationally affects how it's treated in best track. If you look at Joan-Miriam, which happened just four years prior, they explicitly say that Joan "remained well-organized" over land and was thus renamed Miriam. There's no such wording for Greg, just the standard remnants. As the best track doesn't consider Bret-Greg the same storm, and NHC says Bret dissipated, I say that Greg should not be in the article. There is no "Greg must be added in the article". It would be no more misleading not having Greg here than not having Frank's full history in Earl's article. This discussion is getting draining and lame. You're not going to convince me, and I don't feel I'm going to convince you. Is it really that big of a deal that we have to have 35 kb of discussion on it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think this discussion is draining and lame, don't participate and I completely understand if you think it is. I don't think there is any proof that it became a wave. Neither a "LO" nor "DB" position (which are used in 11E-Hermine and Enresto-Hector's case existed back then in the ATCF file; the idea of a remnant low did not come about till 2002. Since they are arguments for and again, IMO it is best to remain neutral and ask the NHC/HRD. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Bret's report said that it dissipated, but regenerated and became Greg, and with all NHC evidence I brought here (Bret became 08E, 08E was named Greg, NHC tracks between Bret and Greg, etc), I showed that NHC considers them to be the same storm without contradictions.
I don't question Joan-Miriam, but what about Fifi-Orlene? And Greta-Olivia? And Cesar-Douglas? They aren’t crossovers since IBTrACS don’t group them together? And I showed you that a storm can be a crossover without maintaining at least a depression status all the time, like Georgette, Enrique and Genevieve.
While I question your sources, you keep ignoring mines. And you still didn’t proved that dissipation meant that the storm ceased to exist, since I gave examples of storms that dissipated and regenerated as the same storm. ABC paulista (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Operational info means nothing, as they said it dissipated in post-analysis. As there was no remnant low as a distinct entity back then, and the best track does not have them together, they are not considered the same storm, unlike the other ones which officially are connected. I'm not ignoring your sources, I'm just saying that they're not consistent with Bret-Greg being considered one singular storm. BTW, Cesar directly becomes Douglas per the NHC, Greta directly becomes Olivia, and Fifi directly becomes Orlene. Bret doesn't directly become Greg, it indirectly does, I'll give you that. But do you see the difference between Bret-Greg and those other three storms? The best track is not continuous. This makes it in the same category as Earl/Frank, Francelia/Glenda 69, etc. BTW, I asked HRD and I'm awaiting their reply. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Both of these crossovers I listed earlier didn't weaken below tropical depression status like Bret-Greg, Georegtte, Enrique, Genevieve, Katrina-Victor-Cindy, Hermine, Maka and other crossovers. All of them with non-continuous best tracks.
And storms like Earl/Frank, Francelia/Glenda, Ernesto/Hector, Alma/Arthur, Janet/Unnamed and others were never considered the same storm, not even in the operational data, unlike Bret-Greg.
Shoudn't we ask NHC instead, since they are the offical RMSC for both Atlantic and eastern Pacific? ABC paulista (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I emailed them as well, and awaiting their reply as well. It's an unusual scenario, I'll admit, which is why, even if there isn't a reply from NHC, that there isn't any one true correct answer, that it can go either way. I'll let you know if/when either agency gets back to me. In the mean time, unless someone is going to improve the article by adding info and references to Bret (which isn't the controversial part), I think we should leave the article as is. The coverage for Greg is sufficient in the 1993 PHS section, as well. What wiki really needs is better coverage on the Venezuela impact (which, if this 37 kb discussion was put into prose, would have finished the article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Andrew,

The TCRs for both Bret and Greg clearly state that while Greg formed from the remnants of Bret, the system was not a tropical cyclone continuously.  That is, Bret  
dissipated as a tropical cyclone on the 11th , and there was no active tropical cyclone again until the 15th.

Regards,

James
--
James L. Franklin 

Branch Chief, Hurricane Specialist Unit
NOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center
11691 SW 17th Street, Miami FL 33165

So there we have it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  21:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He only said what is already stated in both storms' reports, so it's not conclusive at all. Try asking him more directy if Bret and Greg are considered the same storm or not, then we should have a more objective answer. ABC paulista (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure Hurricanehink has no interest in bombarding the NHC with loaded questions to try and elicit a desired response. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry then, I sent them an e-mail about this issue. ABC paulista (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind:

They are NOT the same storm.

-Dennis
-- 
Dennis Feltgen
Public Affairs Officer
Meteorologist
NOAA Communications & External Affairs
National Hurricane Center
Miami, Fla.

Well, now I think that this question is over. ABC paulista (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Bret (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 18:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

General note
Monetary values need to be consistent. Given that multiple currencies are involved, USD should be shown as US$ before the value, with the standard {{refn}} noting that all units are in 1993 values of their respective currencies.
Done. That should probably be a standard thing for all articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Lede
Though Bret was only a weak tropical storm, it caused extreme flooding and nearly 200 deaths as it moved through the southern Caribbean Sea, mostly in Venezuela. – Stating "nearly 200 deaths" for the "southern Caribbean Sea" is a bit misleading. Probably should indicate that it's specific to South America to avoid potential geography confusion.
OK, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Need a sentence or two on aftermath in the lede (I'm noticing a theme with you, mister)
Bah, aftermath is always so similar! That's why I don't often to care to add it :P But I will, especially if this article goes to FAC down the line. I also added a mention to Gert. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Meteorological history
General note: I'm noticing that "although" and "however" are used quite a bit throughout this section, possibly excessively so. Should look into rewording various sentences to reduce this.
Cut down on a few :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
However, the circulation became exposed late on August 6, although the thunderstorms soon refired over the center. – Two conjunctive adverbs in the same sentence (i.e. double usage of contrast). Needs to be reworded and/or split.
Yea, this was one I changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The inflow to the south was disrupted by the mountainous terrain to the south, although Bret maintained its circulation while continuing westward... – Department of redundancy department. Also needs to be reworded to avoid consecutive usage of "although".
And I also changed this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Preparations
In general, Bret was forecast to track farther north than it ultimately did. – Did this result in watches/warnings being issued too far north? Otherwise this bit feels out of place and may be better suited in the met. hist.
Yes, actually. The watches went up to Dominica, and the warnings went up to Saint Lucia. The storm wasn't even near there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In Trinidad and Tobago, the government set up shelters and sent home non-essential oil workers. – When? Dates in general are needed for various pieces in this section, in my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to ignore this comment.
I feel dates aren't necessary, so long as it happens before the storm arrives. I'm not sure whether the government set up shelters on August 6th or the 7th, but I don't think it would help the reader that much if I found it. JMHO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Impact
An oil tanker rode out the storm at Coveñas port, with no effects to it or the nation's oil industry. – Not sure if it's worth mentioning that nothing happened, but I guess it's better than not having info.
Yea, that was literally the only other thing I could find for Colombia. I also think the lack of impact there helps show how different impacts can be in neighboring countries. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The capital city Caracas wind gusts of around 31 to 37 mph (50 to 60 km/h) – I think you [forgot] a word.
Looks like did. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
However, the storm's rainfall was more significant. followed by The heavy rainfall was the most significant aspect of Tropical Storm Bret in Venezuela. at the start of the next paragraph. Probably should reword the second one to jive more with the impact, i.e. "the heavy rainfall was the most destructive aspect..." or something to that effect.
Good catch! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
On the offshore Isla Margaria, the rains flooded the primary hospital, and rivers overflowed, although damage was minimal. Heavy rainfall caused damaging mudslides and flooding, and entire houses buried in the middle of the night with little notice. – Abruptly shifts into discussion mainland impacts without warning. Needs something to notify the reader that the bit on Isla Margaria is over.
That's what I get for writing as I discover sources. Sometimes I forget to improve flow :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of effects at the end of the Venezuela section should have larger numbers first (homeless in Barinas state before Caracas). Injuries should also be listed alongside fatalities rather than homeless.
Switched around. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
At least 19 people perished in Miranda state, and another three deaths were reported in Aragua due to landslides. – Seems more fitting for this bit to be near the Petare piece in the preceding paragraph.
Agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Aftermath
Officials sent medical crews to the hardest hit areas, with an increased potential for the spread of water-born diseases due to ongoing floods and damaged sanitation facilities. – Wording feels a bit off to me...not entirely sure the two clauses fit together well in a single sentence.
OK, I split. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As always an enjoyable read, Hurricanehink and Hylian Auree. Some issues here and there that need correcting before I can pass the article. I'm placing it on hold accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Pardon the slight delay (as usual :P ). Looks good now, happy to pass the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Bret (1993). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://nema.gov.tt/resources/downloads/tropicalcyclones.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)