Template:Hurricane Template:WPTCarchive

• 95L.INVEST

Best status from NRL: 30kts, 1004mb

95L.INVEST first appeared 2011-10-15, 0900z @ 17.4ºN 86.4ºW

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. YE ^{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. YE ^{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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. YE ^{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]

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]

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. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Sources does not state that it is a cat 3 of 125 mph. Is there currently vandalism going on with this article? Jonayo! ^{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]