Talk:2011 Atlantic hurricane season

2011 Atlantic hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 17, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance

	Weather portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

2010s Mid‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Specialized archives: Pre season, June, July, August, September, October, November \\ Tracking Data \\ ACE calcs

Other basin talkpages (2011): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere

Archives

Archive 1

Tropical Cyclone Reports and Best Tracks

Storm Name	TCR	Best Track
Storm Name	TCR	KMZ	FTP	NRL
01L.Arlene	[1]	[2]	[3]	[4]
02L.Bret		[5]	[6]	[7]
03L.Cindy	[8]	[9]	[10]	[11]
04L.Don	[12]	[13]	[14]	[15]
05L.Emily		[16]	[17]	[18]
06L.Franklin	[19]	[20]	[21]	[22]
07L.Gert	[23]	[24]	[25]	[26]
08L.Harvey	[27]	[28]	[29]	[30]
09L.Irene		[31]	[32]	[33]
10L.NONAME		[34]	[35]	[36]
11L.Jose		[37]	[38]	[39]
12L.Katia		[40]	[41]	[42]
XXL.NONAME¹	[43]
13L.Lee		[44]	[45]	[46]
14L.Maria		[47]	[48]	[49]
15L.Nate²	[50]	[51]	[52]	[53]
16L.Ophelia	[54]	[55]	[56]	[57]
17L.Philippe		[58]	[59]	[60]
18L.Rina		[61]	[62]	[63]
19L.Sean		[64]	[65]	[66]

1. This unnamed tropical storm was identified in post-season analysis.

2. Nate was reclassified to hurricane status in post-storm analysis.

November

99L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 25kts, 1011mb

99L.INVEST first appeared 2011-11-20, 0000z @ 22.3ºN 55.9ºE

90L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 35kts, 1004mb

90L.INVEST first appeared 2011-11-30, 0000z @ 33.5°N 33.6°W

Track Map Update

The Track map needs to be updated again. It shows only half of Ophelia and Philippe's path, and it doesn't show hurricane Rina's path. STO12

Set Up

Not that it is of particular concern at this time, but how is the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season page going to be set up at the end of the season? Will it be like the 2007 Article, where it will need a separate page for the list of storms in the season, or like last seasons, where all it needs is the Seasons Summary section? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be like last season. We've decided not use the new format (2007 AHS) any longer. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Okay, was just wondering. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im happy to hear, I can see that set up being used on a crazy long season like 2005 but having a seperate list of storms for small seasons was just too confusing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that format is more confusing to readers than helpful. However, we might as well leave 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 as they are, because putting them back might deprive them of their FA/GA status. Rye998 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 and 2009 do not have the new format. It is a content fork. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Ah, I didn't check back to see about that. Still, their notability status remains unchanged. Rye998 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Date

I know it's a cheek to do an edit with a comment "stop the edit wars", but the advisories and the RBT both say that TS Nate formed on the 7th Sept (whether you take UTC or CDT), not the 8th, so I have reinstated this.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, these edit warring is spreading via IPs into the German WP article, which is prety much annoying. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track Map

While there are no active tropical cyclones in the Atlantic, the track map needs to be updated. It is a little behind, still showing Maria near Bermuda. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonebiskit has just updated it. I shall give more thanks to Cyclonebiskit. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct vs Indirect

There has been a debate over what the line is between direct vs indirect for the north atlantic seasons/hurricanes. It varies from page to page, and is the author's opinion, when it should be the reader's opinion. This was mentioned on Hurricane Irene's Talk here and the words direct and indirect were taken away from the 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season page by Cyclonebiskit.He said "...merging direct and indirect...due to uncertainty with several storms, best to just use total deaths (111 for the season)" (here) Thoughts? Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of having direct and indirect. As Cyclonebiskit did, I like the idea of just merging them together. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I dont really see the need for indirect and direct deaths caused by the storm, exceptions could be if an event occurs after a long period of time that was indirectly related I guess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia

Get ready for the editing on the 2011 AHS page, because according to ATCF, Ophelia has formed. I'm not updating it because its not technically OFFICIAL yet, but if I were you, I would go ahead and make the new sections and everything, and get ready to click save when the advisory comes out. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC) BEGIN NHC_ATCF invest_RENUMBER_al982011_al162011.ren FSTDA R U 040 010 0000 201109210206 NONE NOTIFY=ATRP END[reply]

Yes yes... there's already an unwritten procedure for that :P Darren 23^Edits|Mail 02:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Ophelia

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

I've noticed that nobody has written an article for Tropical Storm Ophelia yet...Are we waiting until it impacts the islands, because I plan on starting a sandbox tonight, and possibly publishing tonight if that is OK with you guys. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: What has it done which is notable in any way, shape or form? Darren 23^Edits|Mail 22:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit the season article, you'll see this:

"Please read:

Before creating articles on individual tropical cyclones, please ensure that it is necessary; information regarding current non-impacting storms may be suited better at Wikinews. Also, do not add any changes to the article until they are official from the NHC - that is, it is issued in the newest advisory or tropical cyclone update." There really shouldn't be any discussion going on here about whether or not a storm merits an article; it's common sense. ★ Auree _talk 22:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

We're number 2?

I'm proposing removing these references from the Maria and Nate sections of the article. We had a discussion at the project talk page a while back about these sort of trivial records being within the wikipedia articles. What makes these statements more trivial than most is that these systems rank #2. Let me know what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, doesn't really need to be on the articles. If it was the earliest formation, that would be different, but that isn't the case. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we agreed to have the info in the article, it would fit better as a single sentence in the season summary section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see having one of the fastest advancing seasons in history as being trivial. I think things like these have save the casual reader from all the trivia in the article ("Lee reached a peak intensity of 60 mph (95 km/h) early on September 3") and help them put it in some sort of context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, because the older part of the dataset is incomplete (see the latest updates to HURDAT last week for more added storms for the late 1890s and first decade of the 1900s), we really don't know if seasons earlier in the database were as busy as this year or not. 1933 could have been just as busy, if not moreso, but that was in the era prior to radar, recon, and satellite. Using 1990s standards, at least one (maybe two) of the currently named storms wouldn't have been named. That's why I believe if we do mention this sort of thing, it should be restricted to #1, and stated that it is the "fastest known start" to a hurricane season, or something to that effect. Thegreatdr (talk)

1933 could have been more busy than 2005; despite this, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season starts "The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history". And I stand by my statement; we fill the article with factual trivia (again, "Lee reached a peak intensity of 60 mph (95 km/h) early on September 3") and give the casual reader no context to what that means.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel "peak intensity" is too vague, use the phrase "highest maximum sustained wind" during its first use, and it's covered. There's no reason why terms should be left undefined in some way within an article. Otherwise, it could be an obstacle to GA or FA class. I'm not against fastest or slowest start, I'm against trivia such as second quickest start or 10th slowest or 25th strongest TC.... Thegreatdr (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about peak intensity. Let me rephrase it another way; an article on an Ugandan pop song should tell both that it sold 50,000 copies and that it was the #2 song on Ugandan charts for a month. Without the latter information, I don't know what the first means in the context of Ugandan pop. Raw speeds and dates just aren't of much use to the non-hurricane buff, and I must say I didn't realize how fast this season was developing until I realized that Maria was the second-earliest 13th storm. I'm not talking 10th or 25th; I'm talking second.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Ophelia Article

Ophelia is going to need a new Article and right now might be a good time but another good is when it ends. But in conclusion, Ophelia needs a new article for itself. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was wondering how long that was gonna take before someone would bring it up. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make one yourself. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Cyclonebiskit is currently working on one, so please do not not make one. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall give my thanks to Cyclonebiskit for doing this. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the sandbox. It is currently missing the meteorological history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of recent events - graphic

I was looking at the timeline graphic in how it handles both Emily and Ophilia given they both have a split in their history. For Emily, both halves of the bar are the same colour even though acording to the article the re-orgaination never passed TD status; for Ophilia, each half is a different colour depending on the max strength during each period. I don't know which way is "correct", otherwise I would just fix it. Someone should have a look and make the two storms consistant.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention..It appears somebody changed Emily earlier and nobody noticed the mistake. As for Ophelia, it is correct. Ophelia started off as a tropical storm, dissipated, and then strengthened into a Category 4. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, well i noticed it but i didn't hink it was a mistake. just a confusion. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia winds/category discrepancy

Description says Ophelia reached strong Category 4 (Timeline says Category 4 also) during October 1, which would be about 150 mph winds. However, all advisories I can find show maximum winds at 120 mph on October 1. Isn't this a medium Category 3? In this regard, how could it have been a "strong" Cat. 4 during that period? 74.198.164.50 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia reached a max intensity of 120 kts (Category 4 hurricane). I removed the word "strong" since the meaning could be interpreted as either a "strong Category 4 hurricane" or a "strong hurricane" at Category 4 intensity. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody appears to be messing with the Tropical Storm Philippe/ACE sections?

My HTML and Wikipedia skills are nil, but I'm fairly sure that Philippe doesn't have an ACE of 32.3, not to mention the weird Tropical Storm Pauly stuff that seemed to be up there a few sections ago.

I admit to being surprised that someone would troll a general info hurricane webpage, but I guess it takes all types.

I hate vandelism. ANd just a reminder, remember to sign your signature with 4 ~'s. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Philippe?

Sources does not state that it is a cat 3 of 125 mph. Is there currently vandalism going on with this article? Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is apparently trolling us, using subtle vandalism and inserting false information into different sections. Not surprising since none of his/her edits triggered the filters or got immediately reverted. —stay (sic)! 20:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stop debating on whether an article should be made. Any speculation about storms goes on Hurricane Wiki. Thank you.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There goes another one.

Phillippe is gone so Hurricane Phillippe will need a new article for itself. If anyone would be kind enough to do so.

And WeatherBug reports that a new depression might be forming near the Southeast Atlantic near Florida and could form into Rina soon.

Please keep discussion related to the season article. There is no need for discussion on a new article or a new storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rina's information is not correct...

I think that there is a vandal on the page about the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricane Rina is a Category 2 hurricane, with winds of 110mph (I believe this is 100 knots, but I'm not sure, so I'm not changing it). Someone put on there that the winds are 170mph and tha this storm is a full power Category 5 major hurricane on the SSHS. I've looked through EVERY advisory and I have not seen anything that suggests Hurricane Rina was a Category 5 hurricane at any point during its lifetime. It also says that this information was taken at 8:00 a.m. CDT, meand that the time would be 1300UTC. This is also impossible because the NHC only issues advisories on 0000UTC, 0300UTC, 0600UTC, 0900UTC, 1200UTC, 1500UTC, 1800UTC, and 2100UTC. Can someone please fix this and block that vandal from this page? 72.28.15.25 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed those false statements as it was not backed up by a single source. However, the table needs to be fixed (which I'll do now). Thanks, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Someone just corrected it as soon as I posted this, thank you! 72.28.15.25 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Rina

Rina's article is at the main article because it is the only Rina, but if Katia and Don don't have the main article despite being the only storms of their names, why is Rina given it? Richard/Shary of last year also aren't given the main article and they fall under the same league as Rina... 98.206.70.2 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because someone bothered to create the page. I dont think it has anything to do with whether or not the other hurricanes deserve there own page.Millertime246 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current storm Information

Until now, we've always had a section called "Current storm Information" on any active storm, which mostly restates the information already in the infobox (adding info about the extent of tropical storm and hurricane force winds), the justification for which seems to be that it's less condensed and more readable than the infobox. Have we stopped doing this? DOSGuy (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO I have always thought that the "Current storm information" section is indeed redundant to the infobox. In fact, every time I'm the one that adds the infobox for a newly-formed storm, like what I did on Sean, I never really bothered to include the "Current storm information" section at all ... instead some other editor(s) add it in. If this could be a vote, I would vote for just the infobox information only. 89119 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with redundancy, especially if it is only temporary? Has anyone ever considered the the infobox could be removed instead of the current storm information? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm 01M

Well....what are we going to do with the first actively monitored Mediterranean tropical cyclone? Are we putting it in this article for now or is a Mediterranean article going to be created? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing this section. What goes in an article is a classic thing to discuss on an article talk page, and if you feel the need to direct the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, do it on this page in a response.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created a section for this storm, based on all of the information that I could gather from various advisories. It is located on this page: Mediterranean Tropical Cyclones. Please forgive me; since I am not a user, I could not post any of some the images that I found. (Sorry, again!!!) And I also forgot some of the reference websites. Well, when you're rushing (especially to create a new section), it is very pressuring. Anyways, enjoy the new section. I worked really hard to put it together. (And I mean it!!! LOL.) 72.197.253.243 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo Hoo!!! I finally succeeded in adding actual pictures/track images!!! Hope you enjoy the section now!! Anyways, keep up the good work!!! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Mediterranean tropical cyclone page, so the information that the page formerly contained should now be much easier (and much more convenient) to access. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't work. I guess I will need a lot of support, in order to make this happen. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean sandbox

To avoid what occurred as several project users created a sandbox on Hurricane Ophelia, I have created a project-level sandbox for Tropical Storm Sean, which is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical Storm Sean.--12george1 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the Sean sandboxx 76.164.199.76 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season summary?

Why was the season summary section removed? Yea, it is bloated and not sourced, but It is better than no section at all IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in IRC, the Season Summary section is not well written. Additionally, the Season Summary section is supposed to be about impact during the season and the seasons statistics itself. However, in this case, it talks about every single storms formation, dissipation, and track. In my opinion, no Season Summary section is better than a poorly written one. I am willing to rewrite it when the season ends, but if somebody wants to do it before so, go right ahead. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCR Nate

Yesterday, the National Hurricane Center released their Tropical Cyclone Report of AL152011 (Nate). They even upgraded the storm to a hurricane. But, for some unknown reason, they took it down yesterday, and changed the name back to 'Tropical Storm Nate' on the main TCR page. Should be revert our edits to show TS Nate instead of Hurricane Nate, or just wait and see what what has changed (or not) when they release it again. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is back up, they were just updating it. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 14:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the header of the unnamed storm is 13L, watch for the Nate header to change to 16L and the link to change. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed Tropical Storm

According to this article, which has had confirmation by the National Hurricane Center, they have decided to declare one of the invests that developed in early September an Unnamed Tropical Storm. Do we add this to the article now, or wait until the TCR comes out? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, since that source is a WP:RS. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I think we should wait until we get confirmation from the NHC. It isn't part of any official database yet, so I don't think we should add it. There is a chance the agency could merely be thinking of adding that storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and when I went to add it, I came across a /small/ problem (joking)...We don't know the formation/dissipation dates, the winds, pressure, or anything of that. We'll have to wait for the TCR...or not (If they don't upgrade), I guess. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is a reliable source, and if it is not upgraded after all, we can always change it. However, I think it should go in a "other storms" section. Sorta like the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we had several sources back up the 2006 CPAC cyclone, particular with regards to its dates, winds, pressure, and whatnot. We can only guess right now, which would be WP:OR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kierant676 on the Awesome Hurricanes Wiki says peak intensity was 35 knots, formed on September 1 and dissipated on the 3rd. 70.127.233.228 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wiki is fake, thus fails WP:RS. Hink, I don't see why we can't say "An unnamed tropical system formed in early September between Canda and Bermuda". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get further verifiable confirmation than just one news story. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone emailed the NHC, and they said they confirmed it, but we can't source emails. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Yea, so I think we should wait until the NHC actually verifies it then online. It sounds like that'll be soon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im with Hink here, until it is verified online by NHC that is correct then we can not add it. That is either on the NHC RBT, TCR or a press release.Jason Rees (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely wait until a TCR is released...all we have right now is word of mouth, not a direct article from the NHC stating that it's being added. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wikia is unreliable/fake; the source above ^ is fine. Best we wait, then add a section later. HurricaneFan 25 14:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was 94L on or around September 1st. It would have been Lee. I'm fine with waiting for the TCR though. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 15:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, wait for the TCR. Do they keep BT's for non-developing invests or destroy them? Since we would have the data from that 94L if so. However, we would only be able to speculate when it became a TC since we need to know when it lost its frontal structure or gained enough deep convection, and when that phase was lost. It would be OR. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For now this is the best RBT i can find.Jason Rees (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the table has changed to reflect the unnamed storm, something needs to be in the body of the article, with the ref the Sun Sentinel article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it for the time being. While we have your word for it DR that its true, i think it is best that we wait for the TCR or the FTP logs to be released on the ATCF.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about this unnamed system until I saw it here, and then checked out the Sun Sentinel ref, in this talk page. Gerry Bell works in the same building I do, so I don't doubt what he's saying. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, well it doesn't change my opinion that we should wait for further confirmation, its a bit like the yemyin thing from a couple of years back.Jason Rees (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye out for the early October system. Looks like it will be discussed a bit at the NOAA Hurricane Conference next week. I prepared rainfall graphics for it, just in case. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, judging by the way this system looks, and the way that it has been holding up (which is pretty impressive, by the way), it probably did make it to tropical storm intensity, before dissipating on September 3. Well, here is an interesting webpage you might want to read. Anyways, Cyclonebiskit and Jason Rees are right. We have no solid proof (as of now) of this storm (Invest 94L) attaining tropical storm status. Best that we wait until the TCR (Tropical Cyclone Report). But still, this storm is still kind of interesting. Anyways, I'll be keeping an eye on this (and I'm also sure that many of you will, as well), and see how it turns out. Well, just check out the website. It has a lot of good information. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCR should be out by the end of the month according to the NHC Facebook page. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 15:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:I believe that the Unnamed Tropical Storm should be given its section on the article now. A post on facebook by the NHC confirms that they have upgraded the system, and a TCR will be out by November 30. However, they give us the dates between August 31-September 3 when the system was active, and we can always leave the wind/pressure areas blank like we do with old seasons until the TCR. Anons. will be adding it all week if we don't at least mention it, which, I know, is a stupid reason to add it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, facebook is not reliable. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have struck out my previous comment, since those are the dates when the low was active, not when it became a TC. And YE, facebook itself isn't reliable, but the post came from the National Hurricane Center, which is. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they were hacked, or drunk, or rogue. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plain out stupid not to put this in the wiki article? The NHC Facebook page isn't enough? Here's the data from the ATCF. AL, 94, 2011083118, , BEST, 0, 371N, 642W, 25, 1013, LO, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, AL, 94, 2011090100, , BEST, 0, 372N, 641W, 25, 1011, LO, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, AL, 94, 2011090106, , BEST, 0, 373N, 639W, 30, 1009, LO, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, AL, 94, 2011090112, , BEST, 0, 374N, 636W, 35, 1008, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 0, 0, 60, 1012, 75, 30, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S, AL, 94, 2011090118, , BEST, 0, 372N, 639W, 35, 1005, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 0, 0, 60, 1012, 120, 30, 45, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S, AL, 94, 2011090200, , BEST, 0, 376N, 637W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 0, 0, 60, 1012, 120, 30, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S, AL, 94, 2011090206, , BEST, 0, 379N, 638W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 0, 0, 60, 1012, 120, 45, 45, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S, AL, 94, 2011090212, , BEST, 0, 380N, 628W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 50, 0, 0, 1012, 120, 60, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S, AL, 94, 2011090218, , BEST, 0, 389N, 618W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 60, 50, 0, 0, 1012, 120, 60, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S,

35 knots, 1005 mb peak intensity.

- CybrTeddy, WU.

It says "LO" though. We're just waiting for the TCR. There's no need to rush. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season is finally over. And at last, the NHC did classify Invest 94L as a tropical storm. They released the information in a TCR, which has been referenced in the 2011 page. The section for the Unnamed storm looks pretty nice. I'm so glad that they finally resolved the issue. 72.197.253.243 (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format

I am going to go ahead and bring up this discussion in the hopes that this can be easily decided. I am proposing, that for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, we use the format that we did for the seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007. I have already started a sandbox here and have already created the subpage here. I believe this format will work quite well for this season because it featured a high amount of impacts, and currently is tied with the seasons of 2010, 1887, and 1995 for third most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. Opinions? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, we agreed to abandon the format of 2006 and 2007. Simply put, there's no need to have both types of articles, since they constitute a content fork, and the format for 99% of WPTC's season articles works perfectly fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you don't. First, the season did not have that high of an impact, and 2 it is a reeducate and an unacceptable type of content fork. FYI, 2006 does not have this format. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the 2010 format. The format you propose really works only for 2005. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am againt the format of the season summary and seperate pages for the storms, it makes things to confusing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSU

CSU has released their summary of the 2011 Atlantic tropical cyclone activity today, and it mentions the Unnamed tropical storm. According to the article, the Unnamed tropical storm had a peak intensity of 45 mph and a pressure of 1002 mbar., and lasted from September 1 - September 2. Should we use this source? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the CSU is preliminary. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait until TCR comes out. The NHC said by November 30. It's not even up yet. 70.127.233.228 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been delayed by a few days according to a post on their facebook page but yeah i feel it is best that we wait until we have the TCR in our hands as that way we are not committing any OR.Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We got a TCR on the storm. You can use the ref in the Unnamed Tropical Storm Section to see it, on the 2011 page (ref 77, as of December 4). 72.197.253.243 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pic and Track for TS

Maybe somebody should start making the track and get a picture for the unnamed tropical storm. 70.127.233.228 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Cyclonebiskit will be doing that shortly. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have been added to the page. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary sentence in Unnamed Tropical Storm

"Had the storm been classified operationally, it would have been named Tropical Storm Lee." Is this sentence really needed? Or is this just a "trivia record"? 68.113.150.95 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Looming

Several users are editing this page rapidly, unneeded information, symbols, and different versions of pictures keep getting added without being addressed on the talk page. This page rather needs to be protected or there needs to be around the clock patrol for random vandalism. Remember, anything that is something big on the article, needs to be addressed on the talk page before it gets added. (It is considered vandalism if something keeps getting added after deletion without being addressed on talk page). STO12 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the symbols are required per WP:Accessibility.Jason Rees (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but not everything needs to be addressed by talk page, and no, that is not really vandalism, it is more of a start to an edit war, which may need to be discussed on here if it grows out of hand. With that said, I don't see what's wrong with what people that have been adding (excluding stuff that was reverted). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the new format of the timeline inacceptable, without regards what WP:Accessibility says. Especially the wider iamge is a no go. Most users won't see it without vertical scrolling. Bear in mind that more and more users are using netbooks with smaller monitor resolutions or mobile devices. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Photo (2012)

Bret's photo needs to be replaced with the version before it. It is blurry and doesn't show up on mobile devices. It needs to be restored with the version before it. STO12 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory damage amounts

The initial section gives a total season damage amount (uncited) that is less than the amount given later on for Irene alone. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really interesting article. A popular hurricane, and glad to pick it up for a review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Katia, Ophelia, and Rina, and Irene at the first mention (2nd line) in the lead.

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Tropical Storm Sean too.

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you briefly describe ACE index?

I already did in the third paragraph of the Seasonal summary section, but I'll see if I can describe it earlier in the article seeing as how I mentioned it several times prior to that point--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ACE) is mentioned 4 times!

Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove dup links.

Could we have the years for the dates/months?

I'm not sure that's really necessary considering the article title has "2011" in it. All of the dates mentioned were in 2011 unless I've noted otherwise (e.g. there was a pre-season forecast issued on December 6, 2010)--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Lesser Antilles in body too!

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Bay of Campeche.

Not sure why I waited until Harvey to link it when I could have linked it in Arlene's section--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to link UTC, I guess. :P

I'm gonna have to disagree. There's probably a lot of people who don't know what that means--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain eyewall slightly.

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Damage, if any, was minimal" if available, you could add what damage was caused.

Actually the article for that storm says that there was no damage. I'm gonna go with that--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A well-organized tropical " could you explain what is meant by well-organized wave?

I think the easiest way to explain it is that a well-organized tropical wave more closely resembles a tropical cyclone than other tropical waves

"tropical weather outlook" I guess t, w, and o should be in capitals.

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"frontal trough" should be explained.

Pretty much everything with the word "frontal" are all synonyms for weather front. I'm gonna link that earlier in the article--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain rip currents.

It would be much easier if I just wikilink rip current--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have the reason for the retirement of Irene?

The vast majority of names were retired due to a significant amount of damage and/or deaths by that storm. Irene was no exception to that--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very important article of a hurricane season. 12george1 Listed a few issues above! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing!--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12george1 Only three more comments left as I see? (ACE index, (ACE) mentioned many times, and duplinks). If there is any help you need from me, please let me know! I could amend them myself. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Adityavagarwal, 12george1, where does this stand now? As far as I can see, there have been no edits by 12george1 to address the final comment above about what had not yet been done in terms of addressing issues raised in the review. Adityavagarwal, since it's been over six weeks, you might want to set a deadline for completion, or at least resumption of editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was busy with other projects on Wikipedia and in real life. I think I fixed the problem being ACE mentioned four times. So I guess I'll wait for Adityavagarwal to tell me what he wants me to delink--12george1 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linking issue has also been solved. This is a very well written article. Nice work, it is a GA Pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement of a Replacement

As we know, the name Irma is almost certain to be retired and we are simply awaiting for the announcement. Like the 2003 and 2004 season articles, I think that we should note that the name that replaced Irene was (or will be) itself retired. In contrast, Jason Rees removed the content, claiming the information to be trivial. I think that for consistency and factual purposes, this information should be included and not removed from the article. Cooper 20:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should mention that Irma was retired, but not until WMO officially retires it. HurricaneDude2016 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that it is trivial to mention that the name selected to replace the original name being replaced is trivial as it happens a lot especially in the South Pacific where retirement standards are not lower and the lists are not repeated every six years. In fact the list was last restarted during 2002-03 or 15 years ago. As for consistency, it isn't mentioned on the South Pacific pages as it is trivial and I strongly think for consistency amongst the project it should be removed from any pages that its mentioned on.Jason Rees (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does a hurricane being retired in 2017 have to do with the 2011 hurricane season? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names are retired with greater frequency in the South Pacific than in the Atlantic. Stop comparing the South Pacific basin to the Atlantic basin, they are not similar in terms of tropical cyclone frequency and name retirement frequency. I do not believe that it is trivial to mention that the name that replaced the original was retired, as it is additional information that a reader may find useful. And if it is trivial information in the South Pacific, it does not mean it is trivial in the Atlantic, as they are vastly different basins. Cooper 01:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's a relevant and fair comparison since names are not removed as frequently as you seem to think they are. So no I won't stop comparing it especially since Wiki should be consistent in its approach to retired names throughout the project. I also note that in the vast majority of cases there isn't actually a proper source for the replacement names which is yet another reason why it's trivial in my eyes. Also how far are you going to go with this thing all the way back to 1980? As YE put it what has a system being retired in 2018 really got to do with a system in 2011? Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see your point, but most of the older South Pacific seasons don't even have a storm names section to begin with, let alone a retired names section. It seems most users agree that it is a good idea to mention that the replacement name was retired. Cooper 02:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to think how to tackle the SPAC as I strongly feel that it's better to include the retired names in the Seasonal Summuary section and be done with it and that there is no need for a naming section. Especially in older seasons where the information isn't as easy to find. However, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a vote but is based on consensus or the points people make on wiki. Which is why we are having this discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: too see this conversation.Jason Rees (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the storm name section of season articles should just be a list of all the names that were retired and their replacements for the entire list in the future. It doesn't make sense to be there. The storm names section should refer to the storm names used that year (and the relevant retirements), there is no reason to include references to changes in the list in other years. If someone wants to know if Irma was retired, they should go to the season Irma was a part of and actually shows up on the page more than once. atomic 7732 16:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who started the whole "it was replaced by [x], which was used/retired in [y]" thing years ago, and I agree now that it's super-trivial. Hurricane Irma has nothing to do with Hurricane Irene, even in a marginal way of "it was replaced with this name". OK, so the new name was retired - how does that add, at all, to an understanding of Irene or the 2011 AHS? It doesn't. It's not like Irma is a descendant of Irene, or a sequel - they are completely separate things, separated by 6 years, granted significance only by accident of ordering and human sequence-finding. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PoisonCarnival8, Bjones1123, and HurricaneCalebN: Before editing futther can you please take note of this diccussion and explain how exactly Irma leads to an understanding of Irene or the 2011 AHS? .Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me explain something: According to several articles regarding trivial mention, trivia can be included if it is notable and indeed happened. In this case, Irma's retirement meets both criteria. It seems the main reason that Jason Rees does not want this included is because Irma is not related to Irene, which is true in a sense, but also somewhat misleading. For example, say we have a reader look at the retirement section here and find that Irene was retired and replaced by Irma. Perhaps then they will think of Hurricane Irma. However, they may then assume that because Irma's retirement here is not noted, Irma was not retired. Trivial information for tropical cyclone naming are things like: "Irene was one of nine retired "I" named storms since 2000". That's trivial. This, however, I don't think is trivial, as it may be helpful to a reader, who may assume that because Irma is not listed as retired here, it was not retired. Cooper 20:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CooperScience: This discussion has shown that I am not the only one who thinks that it is trivial and I see that some of the long term editors such as @Golbez, Atomic7732, and Yellow Evan: back my opinon up. I also have to ask how are you going to source the fact that Irene was replaced by Irma which was retired and replaced by Idalia without asking the reader to look at two or three different sources. None of the articles on Irma's retirement I have seen mention it, which leads me to think that its even more trivial and not worth adding into the article. I also note that argument could be used to justify mentioning Idalaia, Ivanka, Itelle, Ina and Inga's retirement from the lists in 2023, 2029, 2035, 2041 and 2047. As a result, I feel that it is better that we don't mention it full stop.Jason Rees (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear the opinon of @CrazyC83:, since he decided to readd the trivial fact to Irene in this edit.Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The primary problem isn't trivia, because even if it was agreed by everyone here that mentioning Irma would be an unacceptable form of trivia. The real problem is that Irma isn't related to the subject matter of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season at all. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it is not speculation, it is fair game. But it is a tough one - and it should only be mentioned on an immediate retirement the next time it was used. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is not an easy case it seems. Although I don't understand the "Idalia, Ivanka, Itelle, Ina, Inga" idea, as the last four of those names are not on any name lists. Cooper 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should mention that if we shouldn't mention that the retired name was also retired on this article, maybe we shouldn't include it in other seasons as well. Cooper 23:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example I used in one of my edit summaries a few days ago to demonstrate for example that if Idalia gets retired in 2023 and replaced with another name, Ivanka for example, should we also mention that Idalia was retired or include its replacement name? It's only one further degree removed and neither Idalia nor Ivanka have anything to do with the 2011 AHS, just as neither Irma nor Idalia have anything to do with 2011 AHS (besides Irma being the replacement name, which I do think should be included). And yes, I and I'm sure other editors agree that it's not just exclusive to this case, other instances of mentioning retired names in future seasons (not the names retired in the season the article is about) should be removed as well. atomic 7732 23:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Atomic7732: for explaining that quicker than I could and I have said all along that it should be removed from all articles as its not a fact thats been picked up by the media afaik.Jason Rees (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Jason Cooper is right it should be mentioned. Look and remember Irma is retied so the afterthought would be also in the Irene page not the 2011 Hurricane season because then it would be irrelevant. If Idalia gets retired then it be mentioned on the Irma page. So Cooper makes a good point. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, a storm other than the one at hand (Irene), especially one not from the season at hand (2011), is already pretty tangential to the subject of the name "Irene". Talking about its retirement is completely irrelevant here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

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

Add the fact that Irma was retired after the 2017 season and replaced with Idalia for the 2023 season. Please. 2601:401:C400:357:C9BE:7EAF:A04C:127E (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which is not relevant to the article as indicated earlier. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Active discussion of this exact subject immediately above this request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add what I said above. I said that Irma was retired in 2017 and replaced with Idalia for 2023. That fact IS important. Please.

No its not important per the discussion above. Please either respect the consensus or talk to us rather than dictating what pieces of trivia we should and shouldnt put in.Jason Rees (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of named storms

This season is actually tied with 1969 and 2019, because one storm was unnamed. So this season had 18 named storms, not 19. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C401:9850:BC69:7186:4B25:E5E3 (talk • contribs)

Even though you're correct that there are 18 named storms, we use total amount of actual (sub)tropical cyclones for record-keeping. This season has 19 total storms, which includes the unnamed tropical storm. That unnamed storm could've been named, but it was thought to be of an extratropical cyclone before it was figured out that it was a tropical cyclone. INeedSupport ^:V 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reword it so it's now "tropical storms" instead of named storms. Still, 2011 has the third-highest total storms with 19 of them, thus it's higher than 1969 and 2019. INeedSupport ^:V 20:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Tropical Storm Streak

Can we add that the 2011 season has the longest tropical storm streak in history, with 8 tropical storms in a row?Poxy4 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Don (2011) into 2011 Atlantic hurricane season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. _ZZ^Z 'S 02:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It literally only caused minimal rainfall due to dying comically early. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nothing really of note happened with Don, and also there were no deaths and damages reported. The impact section of the article is quite short (since it mostly just talks about the preparations) and can be easily trimmed down and added on to the storm article. ~ Sandy 14156 (Talk ✉️) 00:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above --_ZZ^Z 'S 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support It really didn't cause much damage and has no fatalities. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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