Template:Hurricane Template:WPTCarchive

• 92L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 25kts, 1009mb

92L.INVEST first appeared 2011-08-07, 1200z @ 11.5ºN 20.0ºW

NHC TWOs

2011-08-10, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-11, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-12, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-13, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-14, 0000z // 0600z

• 93L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 25kts, 1010mb

93L.INVEST first appeared 2011-08-10, 1800z @ 9.7ºN 15.7ºW

NHC TWOs

2011-08-10, 1800z

2011-08-11, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-12, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-13, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-14, 0000z

• 07L.NONAME - Tropical Depression

Best status from NRL: 40kts, 1004mb

94L.INVEST first appeared 2011-08-12, 0600z @ 24.9ºN 54.5ºW

Tropical Depression Seven from NHC 2011-08-14, 0300z @ 27.9ºN 61.6ºW

NHC TWOs

2011-08-11, 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-12, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-13, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2011-08-14, 0000z

RSMC Miami Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Depression Seven

• 06L.FRANKLIN - Tropical Storm

Best status from NRL: 25kts, 1011mb

95L.INVEST first appeared 2011-08-12, 0600z @ 34.8ºN 66.8ºW

Tropical Depression Six from NHC 2011-08-12, 2100z @ 36.0ºN 63.9ºW

Tropical Storm Franklin from NHC 2011-08-13, 0900z @ 37.9ºN 60.4ºW

NHC TWOs

2011-08-12, 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

RSMC Miami Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Storm Franklin

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]

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

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]

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.YE ^{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. YE ^{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. Darren23^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. YE ^{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. Darren23^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]

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]

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. Darren23^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]

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]

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]

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)

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? YE ^{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]

Please, put this table back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|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

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

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 track after the fact. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]