Template:Hurricane Template:WPTCarchive

Please put all discussion unrelated to articles on the Hurricane Wikia

• 98L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 20kts, 1014mb

98L.INVEST first appeared 2011-07-16, 1800z @ 30.0ºN 79.1ºW

NHC TWOs

2011-07-16, 1800z

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]

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. ~AH1^(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]

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]

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]

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]

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. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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? Darren23^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]

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. Darren23^Edits|Mail 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darren23^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. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]