Talk:2011 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

TSR

Is this really a credible source? Cucurbitaceae (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90L.INVEST

The invest was recently active in the Madeira region and is now drifting northwest toward the Strait of Gibraltar. A somewhat well-developed 90Q.INVEST is spinning in the South Atlantic near Brazil. It may be worthwhile to start the invests section on the talkpage. ~A H 1^(TCU) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it would be better to put invests and so-so on the Hurricane Wiki than here. The talk page exists for the solemn purpose of improving and maintaining the article, and placing invests ect here isn't improving or maintaining the article. Rye998 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd CSU forecast

Should this be mentioned, if it's a reliable link? Rye998 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by now it should be the time to put the 2nd forecast on the page. 71.99.32.171 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this link could be better. It says 16-9-5, with a 72% chance of a U.S. major hurricane, and a 47% chance of a gulf coast MH. Rye998 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the proper forecast from CSU?, instead of some random media report.Jason Rees (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't found that one when I was searching... It should be put in now. Rye998 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it into the "Predictions of tropical activity in the 2011 season". BTW, why does reference #3 keep getting messed up when there is no error on our part?--12george1 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There WAS an error on our part—a newline in the middle of the title field. Fixed.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSI forecast

Did someone just make this up, or is there a problem with the link? If it isn't fixed by tomorrow, I'm removing it at once. Rye998 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, nobody at WSI edited this page, although we are quite interested in adding our seasonal forecasts to the seasonal outlook section going forward. I sense that there may be some reticence in allowing a private weather vendor to post their outlooks, but all of the outlooks are verifiable (via press releases). Is posting our forecasts going to be a problem? TcrawfordWSI (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye: no one made the forecast up, the editor who added it just did not provide a link to a press release. @ Tcrawford: I dont personally have any objections to adding private weather vendors forecasts as long as they are easily verifiable. However i know some other editors think that there has to be a line drawn somewhere and by adding WSI we may have to add Accuweather, Impact Weather and others such as Weatherbell. If anyone needs to know who WSI are heres their homepage.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was made up or something like that because the link wasn't working, and we haven't ever included this kind of forecast before on our articles; are we just going to start including these forecasts this year like we did with the (credible)TSR forecast last December? I would like to know whether or not these rescent local predictions made by local TCWC's are official(made by degreed meteorologists, ect); CSU, NOAA, UK met and a few other forecasts are examples of such, but we shouldn't put every single seasonal forecast we find in Google, ect on our article(FAU, NCU, Accuweather or Wunderground, ect), because not all of them may be reliable forecasts; if the WSI forecast can be considered a credible one, then go ahead and add it... there's no any real harm in adding that forecast in that case, but it's also why we on Wikipedia follow the RSMC data in the Indian and West Pacific Oceans as opposed to JTWC data, ect... Sorry if I was a bit rude, but I'm not very accustomed to new TCWC predictions like that one or TSR. If I was here back in 2006, I probrably wouldn't have trusted the IMD over the JTWC in the NIO. Rye998 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the issue of credibility: We have been doing these forecasts, based upon a regression-based statistical model, since the 2006 season. Our skill against some of the other credible deterministic forecasts is detailed here: http://wsi.com/modules/Pages01/GetPage.aspx?PageID=1503&ContentID=1895 I have a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Oklahoma and have been working with WSI for nearly 11 years. Unless there is significant objection, I will begin posting our forecasts sometime this month. Thanks again. TcrawfordWSI (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My computer won't open that page for me for some reason; I just wanted to know that. We haven't included forecasts like yours or TSR before this year, but as long as we can take credit from what you're saying, like we can from the CSU and NOAA, ect, I won't be upset over anyone adding it. Rye998 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CPC

Well, another one was put in. I haven't removed it, but I feel the climate prediction center may be reliable, just that the editor did not put in a link to the press release (like WSI above). Is it possible to reccieve a link to that forecast? Rye998 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the link see German WP article on this. You may copy. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be reliable? It's the NOAA forecast... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just another word for NOAA? Then fine... Sorry If I hadn't heard of every alternative name for CSU/NOAA, ect... Rye998 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the many prediction centers in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (alongside other familiar names such as the Storm Prediction Center, the National Hurricane Center, and theHydrometeorological Prediction Center), all of which are part of the National Weather Service / NOAA. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane?

Does anyone think/believe that Arlene should become a hurricane at some point tonight?

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please put discussion unrelated to editing the article on Hurricane Wikia or any other forum. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene image proposal

Rather than just replace the image that is there, I'd like to suggest this image:

Thoughts? The caption is not what I'm suggesting, the context of the caption is for this talk page only. (The current image is square which is probably good so maybe some cropping would be necessary, some post processing to enhance contrast might be called for as well.) --TimL (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been cropped and enhanced, time to be bold! --TimL (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice image for within the article, but the infobox image should probably be the same as the one in the article; meaning the MODIS image uploaded by Supportstorm would probably be a better fit for infobox placement. -Marcusmax(speak) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --TimL (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHC Preliminary Maps

I saw that the NHC is now providing monthly preliminary maps for the Atlantic (and EPAC). Should we use these maps instead of our basin track maps? Darren 23^Edits|Mail 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find, but I don't think it's terribly helpful. We can make maps that are up-to-date, as opposed to the NHC's being monthly. I also don't think they would include new information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I'm going to upload it. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hink, our maps are up-to-date and visually pleasing to look at. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what happens on July? Do they provide a cumulative track map, or one containing only July storms? We don't have that restriction (we can make either). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to what they did in the EPac the provide a cumulutative track map. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary table inconsistency

The summary table shows 4 deaths from Arlene, the only storm so far, yet gives a total of 5 deaths! 69.72.27.253 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by some IP. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invests included

Could we start putting Invests in the articles ONLY if there notable? 96.242.128.37 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely positively not. For one thing, they're not tropical cyclones. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, no. However, as done in the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season and 2004 Atlantic hurricane season they can go in the season summary section after the season. Unless 97L causes a carp load of damage/deaths in Mexico, don't include it in the article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually no such thing as a notable invest. So your question is flawed at the premise. In the amazing circumstance that one is interesting enough to merit mention, it will, well... merit mention. --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bret, article or not?

We know this conversation is bound to happen, so why not start it now. Should Bret have it's own article? At this time I would say no due to it's intensity and a lack of a landfall or projected landfall, but maybe down the line? -Marcusmax(speak) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely positively not unless the Bahamas take a whacking. Right now its forecasting to be a typical Bret and go out to sea.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 00:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Bermuda is in the cone, might want to look at impacts down the line. Of course right now that is nothing but crystal. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why must we do this EVERY TIME....It's not that hard to figure out if a storm warrants an article or not. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being rude but it's absurd that every time something forms, we have to go through this silly process of "should it get an article?" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I agree, I just started it early rather then having someone else start one down the line. Then it ends up as some giant fight, with an occasional AFD tossed in (Example: Tropical Depression Five (2010) AFD and long debate); Perhaps some kind of project guideline should be formed on this topic CB? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline we once had in place was if tropical storm/hurricane warnings were put into place. That's the time when an article is warranted. Anything less/otherwise is up to the discretion of whomever wants to write it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully againt an article for Bret, articles should be made only when a storm becomes notabile enough for one. Bret has shown no notability thus far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes when ts warnings/hurricane watches go up (if they go up) which has been an unofficial policy since 2006. The most important notability rule about articles in this project is that articles should be created if non-RMSC sources can be found.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a tropical storm warning up now.--12george1 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, so should someone start a sandbox? I can't because I am working on more important EPAC storms. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is working on an individual, we could put up a project sandbox. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and if this just ends up being a fish storm how is that notable... ? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it hit the Bahamas, so it's not a fish storm. But, I still don't think this deserves an article despite that because I really don't think something which just gave an area a breeze and some rain really deserves anything important. If there was reasonably extensive damage, then I'd agree to an article, but right now, it doesn't seem like it has done anything to the Bahamas. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fishspinner. It has made a direct hit on the Bahamas, and TS warnings are up. If it was created, it would likely pass WP:N. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a fishpinner. Over here in West Palm Beach area, we are getting some heavy downpours.--12george1 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Bobherry (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rain in FL is not associated with Bret. There's a trough situated over the region that extends south of Bret but it's an entirely different system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bahamian news outlets updated their websites, we might actually get some news on impacts. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...I remember having these same conversations 6 years ago. Isn't it about time some type of guideline was developed? This is the extent of what we have now: "Articles can be created on any storm, provided they are reasonably well-written, comprehensive, and generally have more than two paragraphs of information on it in the body of the article. Articles may be merged by consensus, however." Using that as a guideline, any one could create an article on any named storm and most depressions. I am not necessarily against that, but is that the spirit of that guideline or what is intended? --Holderca1^talk 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unofficial guideline is to wait until watches or warnings are posted. Maybe we should make that more "official", but I'm not sure how. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that unofficial guideline is useful either, that says that anyone can make an article for a storm that may have brief watches/warnings put into place but with no actual landfall or affects. We get severe thunderstorm watches and warnings all the time here in the united states but people do not make articles about them unless they cause damage/destruction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we (I mean WP:WPTC and any other involved peoples) should agree on some sort of definitive, written guideline. Our unspoken guideline is subject to much interpretation, and some people (including me) think that the unofficial guideline we have now is just the bare minimum. By writing a definitive guideline, we can settle most of these unhelpful debates once and for all. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a slightly more minimum guideline was that there had to be independent, reliable sources, which means sources not derived from the NHC. That means that newspaper articles that get their data from NHC advisories, as well as reports on the season just mentioning the storm but still getting their data from the NHC, wouldn't count. Basically, the Wikipedia policy requires significant coverage in reliable sources, so a landfall is pretty much required to get significant coverage from multiple sources. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is ambiguous in of itself. Take Hurricane Danielle for example. No warnings were ever issued for the storm. Yet the article has six sources not affiliated with the NHC. --Holderca1^talk 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take Tropical Storm Erick as another example, a storm few fish even were disturbed by, yet it is featured, so it passed the Wiki community's notability concerns. --Holderca1^talk 03:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's likely Erick wouldn't exist if it weren't featured. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just read through the FAR and AFD. I would say opertionally, some type of warning needs to be issued before thinking about it, unless there is significant news coverage outside of a RSMC such as Typhoon Ma-on. On past storms, there should at least be fatalities or damage involved, but again there needs to be coverage from the general media, but if there is damage and fatalities there generally will be. --Holderca1^talk 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bret gets an article anyway despite not doing anything. Interesting, considering the long list of storms that actually did do something that either need an article created or expanded. Oh well. --Holderca1^talk 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have work being done on marginal recent storms than no work being done at all. For better or for worse, Bret's already been viewed nearly 1000 times in the past couple days, so there is some interest in it. Juliancolton (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's clearly the recentism bias. How many people will care about it in six months? A year? Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) only gets 72 hits per month, or 3 hits per day. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not good arguement for keeping an article about Bret around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was going quite the opposite with Cristobal. If only three people on the internet look at something each day, is that really worth our time? And of those three, I would bet 1 or 2 are from bots and random page views. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landfalls?

Are we not including landfalls anymore in the chart for the storms? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - its pointless to do landfalls as most systems have their impacts spread out and are not just confined on spot where the system made landfall. It was also getting silly as several people were adding in landfalls that would meet the criteria for OR.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My primary argument is Hurricane Isabel. Why should only the NC landfall be mentioned when it caused billions of damage elsewhere? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of not using landfalls, too many can be up to interpretation. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, it also lead to numerous "direct hit, no landfall"s, which was very difficult, if at all possible, to find a citation for it, which could make it WP:OR.--12george1 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cindy?

Is this even true? Where are the sources? I won't revert as there are a couple of editors expanding it, so I figured it must be true. AJona1992 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We love to jump at updating the article the second an advisory from the NHC is out. Sometimes we get to it a bit too fast but it's legitimate. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not just me then! hehe - It's like a race to see who gets to it first. :D (I'm a newbie joining you guys; sorry for my occasional typos, which are a result of updating info so fast.) 89119 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who live in the UK and Ireland might want to keep an eye on the storm, I dont think it will be much of anything but you never know what the aftermath can be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep all discussion unrelated to the development of the article on other forums/pages. Wikipedia is not a forum. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wasn't saying "This is my fav hurricane" etc. I was asking a simple question if the information was true or not. AJona1992 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Current storm information" section

Why do we need both the infobox and "Current storm information" sections just to display the same duplicative information? That seems redundant. What's wrong with just one or the other? (If consensus ever went with just one or the other, though, I personally prefer the infobox because it organizes information better in its table cells.) 89119 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say we could expand the prose section to include the forecast of the storm, but that is already included in the infobox graphically in the forecast map. --Holderca1^talk 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No other images for Cindy?

I noticed the image we are using in the infobox for Cindy is from when the storm was still just 99L, nowhere even near the peak intensity of the storm. Commons shows we have no over images for Cindy, do any others exist that are closer to peak intensity (preferably MODIS)? --Marcusmax(speak) 18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see any MODIS images for Cindy, sorry. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk)

There was one that Terra got of the storm while it was at it's peak, but unfortunately the image is currently unavailable on the website. Supportstorm (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats kind of disappointing, I can't find any other images either. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded an image taken by MODIS aboard Aqua spacecraft showing Cindy on July 21, when it was at maximum intensity. I placed it on Cindy's infobox. I hope you like it! TheAustinMan (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cindy Reference

Who deleted my reference source? It had the sources needed for the extra information I added in Tropical Storm Cindy's box. (The reference I'm talking about is the last one where it says citation needed at the end of the box. And to whoever deleted it: please tell my why you deleted it. I'm still working on making those, it was my second one I've made since I've been on here. Thank you, --Ryder 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) talk

It was removed by Titoxd as he thought the blog did not meet WP:RS, WP:SPS.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you.--Ryder 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ACE Dispute

I for one find that the ACE decision was both a bad decision, and certainly done in an overly hasty manner. While ACE is meant to compare seasons in general, the scholarly literature has used individual storm ACE. Showing the individual numbers allows calculations to be checked, and ACE has been used in every season on Wikipedia for some time. The "consensus" was not given appropriate time or notice, and is be presented in a rude and dictatorial manner by the very small group of people making it. Very poor wikikette, abominable in fact. 24.128.152.92 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate time or notice? How long do you think it should have lasted? The vast majority of WP:TROP members agreed to remove storm-by-storm for the at least the ATL. How is it very poor wikikette? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the discussion. It affects all seasons, not just the current one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion is still ongoing, so this is not a fait accompli by any means. If we can identify reliable sources for these calculations, they can come back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACE index for storms and ongoing season

Please, put this table back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No per the discussion above.Jason Rees (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have posted a rush, unsigned comment. Only later did I find the discussion related to this subject (although I did look for it before, not too thoroughly it seems). I'm not professionally related to meteorology and write from within the group of wikipedia readers who read as a form of entertainment - that is, I suppose, the majority of encyclopediae readers. I read and understand your concerns about the lack of independent sources. I was directed on a forum to this page, which might have come up before: http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ - I hope it helps bring those statistics back! Cheers, Luis

Emily

is Emily a td again NHC has issued advisory on weak td Emily24.205.131.85 (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin gone

franklin is gone, please note this on timeline.99.171.94.90 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track maps looking awful long?

Maybe I am going crazy, but are the track maps this year longer then they have been in past years? By that I simply mean, why are we showing such long tracks for these storms while they are invest strength? Something just seems off. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was gonna complain about that as well. I don't think the invest portions should be included, with the exception of Emily's status between its first dissipation and its regeneration. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if the track of the invest is not important (Does not affect land) then it should not be included (Notable exceptions being extreme latitudes example: Hurricane Danielle (2010)).

I've uploaded a revised version that only includes portions of a storm's precursor if it's listed as "LO", except for Emily because I'm honestly not too sure what to do with it (entire precursor portion is listed as "LO"). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is agreed upon, past season maps will need to be revised similarly. Personally, I don't see the issue, because these portions of the track are normally added to the NHC operational track after the fact. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The past maps should be fine, those are all based on HURDAT and the TCRs. The main issue here is the inclusion of the invest track which is not kept in post-season. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, when was the last time that happenned? They normally include it all into the TC track, since that whole 9XL file is moved over to the new designation within ATCF; the invest data isn't destroyed all of the sudden. In years prior to 1988, there is a real possibility of the predecessor low not being included within the TC track, which could be rectified when the Atlantic hurricane reanalaysis reaches those years. Carmen of 1974 is a significant example of this occurrence. The L designation is relatively new within HURDAT. Either way, it's all info from NHC, so there are no problems from that standpoint. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about the new preliminary maps, perhaps that is what our tracks should be based off of for now. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could definitely be a guide, since it's more recent information. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the data that I'm using in the track program is the running best track, which is considered to be more accurate than the preliminary track data (which is used in those monthly maps). @DR- Every storm last year would serve as an example of the invest portion being removed in the TCR/HURDAT. As a quick show of this, here are the tracks of Hurricane Otto as depicted by the running best track and HURDAT. Note the complete exclusion of the points before it was classified as a subtropical depression. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I wonder why that happened. It shouldn't occur too often, unless they do not believe the system was actually a surface low during that stretch of time. That is the point of having the L designation within HURDAT, EBTD, ATCF, whatever. Since the ATCF info is soon to be declared the official database over HURDAT, what Cyclonebiskit is doing with the tracks and maps is what should occur, since it is NHC's latest thinking. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I ask about whether to include the invest/low section of the storm, people tell me to do it that way… Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gert now

Gert has formed please note on season effects and the page Timeline of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. 99.171.94.90 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need not mention it all the time. The editors will obviously do that! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gert's Impact on Bermuda

Is Gert having any major impact on Bermuda or is it still too soon to tell? I saw that the latest statement for the NHC has the warnings discontinued for Bermuda with no hazards affecting land. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I get off-topic here, no. Keep any further discussion on hurricane Wiki. There have been no reports of damage, and rain wasn't too abundant either. Rye998 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does referenced detail of the record and a prediction not fit?

You're displaying ownership worse than I do, not to mention any names *darren23*cough. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I added, then another user added the appropriate section "mid season forecasts":

On August 20, Tropical Storm Harvey made landfall without reaching hurricane strength as predicted. This set a new record by having the first eight named storms be tropical storms with no hurricanes, as well as there being no depressions that did not become a tropical storm. Also on this day, a large area of low pressure in the mid Atlantic developed very quickly, skipping tropical depression status and becoming Tropical Storm Irene, and was predicted to be very likely to develop into the season's first hurricane as well as possibly the first hurricane to strike the US since 2008.^[1]

^ Klinger, Krissey (20 August 2011). "First Hurricane of the 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season? -Weather Trends International". PRWeb. Retrieved 20 August 2011.

Is that really so bad? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I deleted that paragraph in good faith because of my opinion that it doesn't belong there. Now, if some other editor were to re-add it because they disagree, I am fine with that. No need to be act all aggressively and in bad faith, because that wasn't my intention. Second, I deleted it because it didn't belong there, plain and simple. The section is all about forecasts of the season. Harvey being the eighth tropical storm not becoming a hurricane in the middle of the season really important in the forecasts section right now. No. If this lack of hurricanes continues throughout of the season, maybe. And isn't it already in the lede? If some uninvolved editor were really to disagree with me, I'm absolutely fine with it being reverted back. But please, assume good faith. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here. This is something that should be in the article, but it does not belong in the forecasts section. That is something that fits better on the Tropical Storm Harvey section. That said, I don't think the reference used to cite this meets WP:RS, so I'd be hesitant to use that reference. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already in the lead as it is notable, no need for doubling of information is needed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit should have never been reverted and instead should have been added to Harvey's section IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted was: it's already in the lede and it didn't fit in the forecasts section. Plain and simple. Now, I don't think this should be in Harvey's section, but in Harvey's article, because you're gonna run into another problem if Irene doesn't intensify to a hurricane. But, it still should have been reverted (removed). Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a positive note, it is a pretty good job done here on this subject, and very well updated for a current event. However, due to it being driven mostly by a small group of very enthusiastic editors who clearly have fallen into a niche of having things their neat and tidy little way, I point out that the intro could be longer, and would be the most appropriate place for my paragraph. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed per WP:FORUM

Okay, changing eight back to seven just because the ref doesn't say eight was just autistic. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - You know what I really think ,this should be added to the season summary section. And DC, WP:FORUM. Please put all off-topic discussion here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you may take it to the many dedicated hurricane chat areas/forums. I deleted your comment because we've had a overwhelming amount of unnecessary comments that we've had. The warning was on the edit notice above the edit box for this page. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a derrogatory way, I'm not trying to be mean, and I know you're going to get mad and delete this, but do you have Autism in the form of Asperger's Syndrome?

It was on the Weather Channel; the Hurricane Hunters said so. Were the Hurricane Hunters lying? Were the Hurricane Hunters lying, Darren23? Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not trying to be mean but when you question someone of having Autism dont you think that crosses the line here? See also: Wikipedia:Civility - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene is a category 2?

Both this article and Hurricane Irene list it as a Cat 2 with max winds of 100 MPH. But the advisory image, and http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT4+shtml/202313.shtml list it as having max winds of 80 MPH. Why the discrepancy?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead off releasing their normal intermediate package @ 00z they issued a Tropical Cyclone Update Statement, announcing that Irene is now a cat 2 with a special advisory round to follow shortly.Jason Rees (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox hurricane current: see more detailed information

Is there a way to modify that link? Or even link it to Irene's main article. Mfs1013 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Add |stormarticle=Hurricane Irene (2011) to the infobox. I've added it for you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mfs1013 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM for Irene

See here. Rye998 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'This time last year'

It would be great if you could add one line under the 'Current activity' in the 'Predictions of tropical activity' section called 'This time last year', which would give the totals of the 'Named' 'Hurricane' and 'Major' storms at the same point in time from the prior year. I currently have to jump back and forth to compare totals.

Thanks 209.203.99.168 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it would probably be incredibly difficult to keep that updated manually, since I don't imagine it could be automated.

Something is up with the page

There is no ATD 13, and it couldn't have ACE even if there were. 24.128.152.92 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

118 km/h missing from ranges

I see that the definitions of storm strengths under the 'Timeline of recent events' goes from 63-117 km/h for a tropical storm, to 119-153 km/h for a category 1 hurricane. 118 km/h seems to have been skipped over...

209.203.99.168 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[prwebaugust20-1] Klinger, Krissey (20 August 2011). "First Hurricane of the 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season? -Weather Trends International". PRWeb. Retrieved 20 August 2011.

[1]