Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Unsigned comment by IP User

This page need to be reverted its too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B01F:F57D:4853:A772:B010:8006 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Traditionally, we publish the season's article after the first major prediction. Therefore, no need for re-draftification. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as there are official predictions by meteorology services, then it isn't "too early" to start this page. It's easier to start it now, especially if an early storm pops up such as what happened last year then this page is already set up and we can use it. zoey (trooncel) 20:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania

Can someone please add this? I don't know how. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/2024-tropical-cyclone-prediction VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Done – You are not a new inexperienced editor, no reason you could not have done it your self. Take a look at the edit ([1]), and be empowered for your future editing. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not used to editing Wikipedia tables though. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have several questions regarding adding UPenn’s forecast. One, it has not been added previously in past years, and also, the forecast is just an extremely unrealistic forecast (39 named storms? Thats 1964 WPac-level and is far more like an hypothetical forecast let alone 2020 reached only 30 annd that was an extreme scenario) and sticks out like a sore thumb. I think we should just remove it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A UPenn forecast was included last season. Being an outlier is not a justifiable reason for removing this season's forecast. Drdpw (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like since the median is the more commonly cited number in news articles, we should use 33 instead of the range. Still a bit extreme but better and less likely to be fearmongering. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

How should "+/-" be rewritten?

UPenn's forecast is written in the body as calling for 33 (+/- 6) named storms. I don't really think "+/-" is the best thing to use in this case, but I'm stuck between replacing it with the "±" symbol or just writing "plus or minus." For this article, and for future reference too, which is more appropriate? Poxy4 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

± is used around the astronomy side of Wikipedia (and probably other areas) so I would go with that. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Forecast from Weather Bell

This webpage cites people named Weather Bell of whom have apparently issued a hyperactive forecast. Should we add their prediction? ✶Qux yz ✶ 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the informal language, the unknown ".bm" domain, and the fact that they cite several forecasters without naming them, I'd say this isn't a high quality/reputable source. Jay Tee⛈️ 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

weatherbell.com homepage

There are a couple dozen agencies / organizations that issue hurricane forecasts, and we cannot include them all. We have included near the same 7-10 groups the past few years. If these are the most highly regarded, why include others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs)

I agree with Drpdw on this, we don't necessarily need to add other organizations to our list when we already have several more reputable sources on here. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I think paring down the number of predictions would be best. Last year we had 22 predictions, several from the same agencies. I think making mention of some predictions is worthwhile, but that number seems unseemly, especially given how massive it makes the infobox for them. Perhaps we should pick a handful of agencies and summarize the average predictions, as well as the upper and lower predictions. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we want to go through last year's predictions and cut down on them? We also might want to codify these guidelines (and make a centralized page that links to all the guidelines of the project). ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at French Wikipedia to see what they did about this problem. They have a list of half a dozen or so sources, even before they issue predictions. When a source issues multiple, they simply make a new line in the same table row. (Articles: 2024 Atl season French, 2023 Atl season French ✶Qux yz ✶ 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Which seasonal forecasts to include and not include is a problem we face in all basins and one that we struggle with year in, year out. The predictions issued fall into 5 main categories which can generally be summarised as:

Group 1 - RSMC/TCWC Predictions (CPC/CPHC/BoM/Meteo France/FMS etc)
Group 2 - NMHSS Predictions (UKMO/SMN/Meteo France/NWS Guam etc)
Group 3 - University Predictions (CSU, NCSU etc)
Group 4 - Public/Private Weather/TV Company Predictions (Accuweather/TWC/WeatherBell etc)
Group 5 - Amateur predictions (User:Jason Rees, User:Hurricanehink, User:Drdpw Force Thirteen etc)

I think we can all agree that under no circumstances any predictions from Group 5 should be added in, as they maybe unreliable, not written down or based on science. Group 4 is where it starts becoming trickier as they are generally reliable. However, we have to remember that there are approximately 30 countries that border the North Atlantic Ocean impacted by TC's off which lets say there are three Public/Private Weather/TV Companies that issue predictions per country, which brings it up to 90 predictions before we even start. The same generally goes for groups 2 and 3 except of course I think I would be murdered, if I suggested that Colorado State University was unreliable since the press has used their forecasts for years. I think it goes without saying that any forecasts by Group 1 should be implemented, however, Meteo France falls into both Group 1 and 2 for obvious reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that groups 1 and 2 should be cleared automatically. From group 3, we would need deliberation as I do not want to say "CSU and NCSU are good, everyone else can go suck it" as we could miss more obscure or foreign colleges (unless we want to minimize on forecasts, but it still seems biased and unfair). TSR is the only one I think that would get consensus in group 4.

Also, this is starting to feel like a project wide decision that we are making, should we move it to the project talk page? ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes discussions go to die when they move to the project talk page, so I don't mind replying here. I think the first three groups that User:Jason Rees said make sense. They all constitute reliable sources, whether for forecasts, or for actual storm/season information. As for Group 4, it seems that Accuweather is not accurate enough for reliable source purposes. Granted, season forecasting is an inexact science. There might be 19 storms, but only 2 major hurricanes (like 2012), or 16 storms with 6 majors (like 2004), which could skew how active the season seems. I think the important thing to note is the reasoning behind these forecasts, rather than the exact numbers. If anything in group 4 adds something that none of the higher groups had, then perhaps it's worth adding. However, I feel like all of them are going to mention the likely transition from El Niño to La Niña, or the warm water temperatures (which we're already seeing signs of). I'd only think a Group 4 prediction would be useful if it was wildly different from the others, and ultimately proved accurate, like if they correctly forecast only 10 storms, when there was a strong consensus for double that (along the lines of 2006). The article is supposed to be a comprehensive look at the topic, but that doesn't mean it has to be exhaustive and include everything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed The Weather Channel from last years based on this discussion. It provided no new information and was not an outlier. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the above categorization, I feel that to consider a forecasting agency reliable, they should satisfy at least two of the below conditions:

The agency publicly details the methodology used to make the forecast. Examples: UKMO using their GloSea6 ensemble, UPenn with their statistical model.
- The agency needs to explain how they arrived at their numbers, and not just handwave expected conditions. Anyone can look at a favorable ENSO setup and say the season will be above average; this criteria serves to act as a differentiator.
- It significantly helps if the methodology is described in scientific literature (i.e. published in reputable journals).
The agency provides an evaluation of past forecasts. Examples: UA has a table with their forecast errors, CSU's 2023 forecast verification.
- This allows readers to see the skill of the forecasts for themselves, and demonstrates accountability.
(Helps if either of the first two are not met) The agency's forecasts are reported on in reliable secondary sources; e.g. NOAA in BBC.
- Caveats are that mainstream media tends to mention only the big names like NOAA and CSU, and journalistic standards can vary.
- Self-reporting like TWC by weather.com and AccuWeather would not suffice, since they would be primary sources in this situation.

These allow us to assess entities outside of Groups 1, 2, and 3. TSR, for example, meets criteria #1 and #2 (though TSR being partnered with University College London does mean it straddles Groups 3 and 4), and I would thus consider TSR reliable enough for inclusion. TWC and AccuWeather look like they fail #1 and #2 (perhaps they're paywalled, which is about as good as not publishing), so I would lean against including them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 20:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is fine, however, if we need to back up every single source with a second citation, the section is going to inflate decently fast. Also, I found one source that does essentially what we have been doing: [2]. They seem to have some pretty strong supporters like Axa, CSU, and some supercomputer in Spain. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not my intention to have to add extra sources to every single forecast - the current practice is fine IMO. This is merely a metric by which we can evaluate which agencies are reliable enough (for Wikipedia purposes) to warrant a mention.

As for seasonalhurricanepredictions.org - that's a neat website, but they're an aggregator with their mission being to show as many forecasts as possible (with some level of quality control), meaning they're not much help if we're trying to trim the forecasts section. Their graphs are nice but copyrighted so we can't borrow them, and for accessibility reasons we can't exactly substitute prose with images. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The Weather Channel

Slightly disjointed but related to the previous discussion: are we adding The Weather Channel to the forecasts lists or keeping them off. We currently only have the updated forecast and their previous forecast was removed along the way. The current condition of half citing The Weather Channel is unacceptable (or at least odd), in my opinion. I am mostly neutral on the inclusion of The Weather Channel, though, it might be one of the easiest to axe should we want to keep numbers down because of the nature of The Weather Channel. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

other systems

Should the June 2024 South Florida floods be added to the 'other systems' category? B137 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn’t a tropical cyclone, so no need. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Only the invest, its meteorological history, and its effects should be included. IMO, I'd wait until another system develops into a tropical cyclone before adding --_ZZ^Z 'S 08:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t include invests unless reliable sources consider them tropical cyclones. The exception is if the NHC initiated advisories on a potential tropical cyclone and it is therefore numbered. The Florida floods belong in a hypothetical Floods in 2024, not this season article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. It seems I have confused invests with PTCs. _ZZ^Z 'S 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A bit on a tangent, should we create a redirect like Invest 90L (2024) to either here or there and have a hatnote redirecting to the other article? ✶Qux yz ✶ 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No, as the designation 90L will be used again (likely a couple times) this season. Drdpw (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe so. It was an invest with a chance of developing. A bunch of tropical moisture was dropped. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No. That’s like saying we should add the 2016 Louisiana floods to 2016 because it caused major flooding in Louisiana from an invest area. Believe me I tried adding it like seven years ago and it was removed for the above reasons. As Hink said, we only reserve the Other systems section for POTCs that fail to develop. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing valid information

I’m wondering if there’s a reason anyone keeps removing the verifiable fact that Alberto caused ports to close. That’s the sort of information we usually include. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked at 2023's article and it doesn't look like preparations were covered there so I decided to agree with Drdpw on removing the information. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Preparations are supposed to be covered. It's always preparations, impact, and aftermath for every storm. Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont mind their inclusion but it is worth noting that, of the storms from 2022 and 2023 I looked at, preparations were seldom mentioned. ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For land impacting storms, they tend to get a sub-article, so the content in the main season article would reflect a general summary (deaths, impacts). We don’t have that yet, but Alberto could warrant an article if the effects become bad enough, at which time maybe the information could get moved from the season to the sub-article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source for it I say it's free game for inclusion regardless of what is included on other pages. Port closures are fairly impactful. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 19:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Article for Alberto?

Considering the information I found online that could be used to expand the article, and the fact that it caused 3 fatalities in Mexico, I think an article for Alberto should be considered 2600:4808:353:7B01:79A6:B17C:1089:5A9A (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I’d add the information first to the section. There’s no pressing need at this point for an Alberto article, but possibly if there’s enough information. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine yes but we should give it a bit more time for more news sources to cover the situation, then an article could definetly be constructed Shmego (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point in time, barring significant widespread damage, a standalone Alberto '24 article may not be warranted. I can see the possibility of an article on the topic "June 2024 Central American Gyre flooding", given the torrential rains and deadly mudslides and landslides throughout Central America preceding Alberto. Such an article could easily include a TS Alberto section. (Like October 2021 nor'easter with Tropical Storm Wanda.) Drdpw (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but 4 deaths caused is certainly noteworthy. I believe the article is notable enough but i believe we should wait until more information about the storm is found and possibly an amount of damage is determined. The "June 2024 Central American Gyre flooding" is not a bad idea either, but Alberto specifically hit Texas with damage which isn't associated with Central America. Maybe a draft could be developed and we could see from there? Shmego (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Alberto (2024).

Also, I'd be fine if Texas was just lumped into Central America for simplicity's sake. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is a good chance of another large storm (with a chance of becoming a tropical cyclone) causing additional widespread flooding in the impacted regions of Mexico. I think we should wait until after that storm to see how things go and consider having a general flooding article that covers both (and possibly other) relevant events rather than splitting it between articles for individual tropical storms. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point. this could possibly end up with us doing what we did with Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal, one article for two storms. Shmego (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Amanda and Cristobal are one page because of the continuity between them, while this upcoming system is separate enough from Alberto. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Amanda and Cristobal are essentially the same system. The ongoing situation in Mexico is due to two (according to forecast). DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Shmego (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe Cyclones Judy and Kevin would be a more appropriate analog. ArkHyena (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As there is precedent for this method (thanks @ArkHyena) I favor following it assuming the forecast of an additional tropical cyclone verifies. I think the impacts are notable enough for a separate article, but I think we create excessive redundancy if two similar storms back to back become two articles. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, perhaps redundant, but I will point out that there are tentative hints in models of the CAG sending up yet another disturbance after 93L (however it develops) by early June. Therefore, I'd argue Drdpw's suggestion of a broader title may be more appropriate especially if impacts continue to be severe after 93L ("2024 Central America and Mexico floods", perhaps?). Of course, this would require waiting even further, but it could be an alternative to consider. ArkHyena (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think waiting is fine. The event is clearly notable enough for an article and waiting seems like the most reasonable action to have a quality article immediately upon being published. We don't have to be an aggregator for breaking news. In the meantime severe impacts can be appropriately summarized on this page. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 05:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think an article could be needed in the future, there is not a lot of information right now. Unbannable user (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe call the proposed article June 2024 Mexico and Texas floods? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes but i would wait for the next system to come by that is currently in the gulf like Dj Cane said. I would say we do Tropical Storms Alberto and Beryl, but we could also just make an article about the floods. Shmego (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Would the hatnote for the article go under both Alberto and the-storm-maybe-called-Beryl (or Chris depending on how 92L wants to go) or just Alberto? ✶Qux yz ✶ 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That proposed title would probably violate WP:CONCISE, though. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, if Alberto gets an article, the subsequent flooding could be mentioned in an "aftermath" section. That is, assuming there's enough information to split off the article. Right now there's no need, since Alberto was the first storm, and unless there's a significant amount of info, I'd just keep adding to the storm section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: There's a decent amount of Spanish sources for it. People should use this to refine searching for specific states within Mexico. There's likely enough for an article out there tbh. Noah, BSBA^Talk 22:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I googled "Tormenta tropical Alberto" but found no new information in the articles I read. Drdpw (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something might be under PTC 1, but I dont have a good enough grasp of Spanish to check. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing new found preparation/impact wise with "Potencial Ciclón Tropical 'Uno'". Drdpw (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There is also no equivalent article on Spanish Wikipedia. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 22:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Folks, more has been added to the draft's ~~aftermath~~ Preparation and impact section, so, is the draft ready for mainspace? Drdpw (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, i think so Unbannable user (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no aftermath section Unbannable user (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. OhHaiMark (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be really small, I'd be very tentative about it. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I yhink if the aftermath can reaxh 2 paragraphs with at least 6 sentences each, it should be moved to mainspace. Unbannable user (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure if there is enough information. I also base it off of article size (which may be flawed but I have a reference for it) and 17,000 bytes is about the border. Also, without the TCRs the size is slightly inflated which would probably push up my minimum estimate to 19,000. Currently, the article is at 14,000 bytes. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, any talk of an Alberto article is premature until we see how the season develops. As it stands, there are only two tropical cyclones, although the season can change quickly. I think the draft should sit around for a bit, wait until the TCR, or if there ends up being another Mexico June storm (one last opportunity with 94L!), and thus justifying changing the format to include subsequent floods. I'd wait. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we do that now, it's not like nontropical weather can't cause flooding in the North Atlantic. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue was the proposed article title. June 2024 Western Gulf of Mexico floods? It isn't the most natural. And as for Alberto's article, I don't think there's enough information in it that's different from what's in its section. There's a lot of duplicate information right now. Not criticizing anyone who worked on the draft, either, just that it doesn't seem like a need to split from the season article, considering where the season is right now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The earlier suggestion of June 2024 Mexico and Texas floods is slightly more concise. June 2024 Central American Gyre flooding would also work fine, I honestly don't care if Texas got lumped into Central America (now only Iowa and Oklahoma have to duke out who the cowboy state is^[Humor]). ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary

Hey OhHaiMark, why did you remove the secondary news source and say only the primary source should be there? Per WP:RSPRIMARY, secondary sources are actually preferred to primary sources. I didn't want to remove the primary NHC source (for obvious reasons), but I think the secondary news source from the Associated Press should still be present. The policy actually states: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." What are you thoughts on this idea of re-adding the AP source to the Hurricane Beryl section? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As secondary sources documenting the meteorological history of Alberto were removed, I didn't see a reason to include secondary sources for the Beryl portion, especially as the AP article basically regurgitated the statements of the NHC. OhHaiMark (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont want to cause trouble with the ten year stuff, but it doesnt really matter in the long run as long as we arent just lying because the TCR is probably going to prioritized. Also, would the NHC even be considered a primary source? ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've honestly had mixed reactions on it. Some editors seem to say no, it is secondary and other say it is primary. My thoughts would be that NHC-updating products (like forecast discussions, advisories, ect...) are primary sources, while the Tropical Cyclone Report (TCR) published months later is a secondary source. That is my take on it, but I do know others (a long time ago albeit) told me all NOAA things are secondary sources. I don't really want to cause problems either right now, given a minor fix I wanted to make turned into a larger-scale removal (all the current stuff got removed following a very minor citation-related discussion I started), but I honestly wanted some discussion at WP:RSN to figure out what NOAA products are primary vs secondary. But, that is probably a topic for another day. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement needs only one citation. Advisories are usually used, until replaced post-season with Tropical Cyclone Reports. In this case, I lean toward using the reliable secondary citation over the official citation (which are, quite frankly, overly relied upon in TC season articles). Drdpw (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Noting

"Current storm information" is a sucky heading and section in a WP-article, MOS:CURRENT, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The proper place to voice your issue with weather articles presenting current storm information and watches and warnings is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather, not here. The scope of the issue is beyond this one article. Drdpw (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations for further information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The proper place for me to voice my issue with this article is this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects have no authority to impose preferences, rules or ownerships on articles. They have no special rights or privileges. They cannot ignore the MOS, policies or guidelines nor override them. They are purely social collaborative groupings. Canterbury Tail talk 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Implementation of policy in the various tropical cyclone articles will be a challenge. I suggest posting a message concerning the AN/I consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

2023 Atlantic hurricane season seems to be doing ok on these particular points (EL and "current"). Maybe that's a model to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And the preceding two decades of season articles, which we’ve been doing the same way… See this edit from 2004, or this edit from 2005. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is because that season is finished. Go into the article history to see how active systems were treated during the year (same for active systems in other basins). Drdpw (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That just shows editors have been violating policy for nearly two decades. Maybe a full policy-based RFC is needed actually. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Or people just ignoring the rules for the sake of public safety, perhaps? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I undid your edit, WeatherWriter. The correct forum is the WikiProject talk page in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Wikiproject talk page cannot override the MOS, Policy and Guidelines. The external links are against our guidelines, the wikiproject cannot change that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not the best place for discussing a content dispute. But neither is a WikiProject. The discussion is here relating to external links being placed in the body of this article, contravening guidance at WP:NOELBODY. You may, of course, signpost this discussion at the WikiProject to get more eyes on this, but the issue relates to this article and very much belongs here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly, Sirfurboy (talk · contribs) - this same practice has occurred in the various tropical cyclone season articles around the world. This is a broader discussion affecting more than just this article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As you say, it happened in previous seasons, but for each previous season that is now historical and it does not affect them now. This is the right page for discussing this issue now. The external links can be in the article, but they should comply with WP:EL and be placed in a section at the end of the article. Information in the article should be written encyclopaedically, which means not reporting latest news (see WP:NOT), but written in such a way that the page will fully describe the topic of the hurricane season for future readers. The policy is already clear on that already. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Due to the event of multiple tropical cyclones, I think it is more useful to link in the individual section. I added a citation for the information, which can easily be redone if that is the consensus. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The added citation addresses the presenting issue in what has morphed into a broader topic of concern. Drdpw (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This does not affect just this article even if we ignore past articles, for it will affect future seasons as well. Thus you are wrong about this being the right forum and I stand by my closure. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A discussion like this, according to WP:CLOSE may be summarily closed when it is disruptive or irrelevant. This is neither. The issues exist on this page and this is the appropriate forum. You suggest there is a larger problem to be corrected, which is fine. That does not preclude discussion on fixing the failure to follow policy and guidelines on this page. That is the meta discussion. Here is the relevant discussion:

There is a section on this page for Current storm information. This should not be there. There is a claim in the ANI thread that it is a public safety matter to place this information our page, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose, and there is a counter argument that it is dangerous to place such information on a Wikipedia page, where it relies on volunteer editor effort to keep it updated. You appear to do an exemplary job of updating it, but it is not your job, and you could walk away from it at any time. If you did so when a major alert arises, and if someone were relying on Wikipedia for their storm information, they may get the wrong information or outdated information. So that should be removed. However, since yesterday we have now lost this from the body of the article:

For the latest official information, see:
The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One

The NHC's latest forecast advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One

The NHC's latest forecast discussion on Potential Tropical Cyclone One

These are external links, so they should be in an external links section at the foot of the page, but they are also pretty good external links. We should indeed be signposting readers to the latest advisories as maintained by those whose job it is to maintain and inform through these advisories. But again, those are very specific advisories that need updating. The NHC already have a landing page that signposts readers to latest information, so I would suggest this go in external links:

For the latest official information and advisories, see: the US National Hurricane Center

We could also link any other official information for those outside the US. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I added {{Current weather event}} with a link to NHC's website, in the spirit of the public safety argument outlined by Hurricanehink above, but that was promptly removed by Drdpw with the edit summary "never need (sic) in previous years" – despite the obvious caveat that, unlike previous years, we are apparently no longer providing current storm information. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution is WP:IAR. People want to know what the storm is doing, and it is useful for public safety. I think we need to keep 20 years of precedence. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@CrazyC83: Per WP:NOTNEWS (actual policy), Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. & Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews (bolding my doing). Adding any of the information like the 3 external links above violates Wikipedia policy. Unless you can provide clear and concise evidence on why and exactly how the 20+ years of the "current storm information" sections for tropical cyclones article was "useful for public safety", then you have no ground to stand on for WP:IAR. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There was nearly unanimous disagreement with that sentiment by non-involved admins and editors at admin's noticeboard which is why the current templates were deleted. The argument is people should turn to official sources for information on current storms, not wikipedia. Attempting to duplicate official information is dangerous and could endanger people should it be wrong or outdated. Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I did bring this matter up, along with a couple related things that might be issues at the village pump on policy. I do think that there is reason to include current intensity since it is likely to confuse readers if only peak intensity is shown while the storm is still active. If we don't do that, then it should be clearly stated in the section (and any article that might be made) that the infobox shows peak intensity and not current intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think a palatable replacement for the now-deleted Infobox weather event/Current and Infobox weather event/live templates could be made, with your suggestion that a disclaimer should be included in the infobox to indicate that what is shown is the peak intensity and not the current intensity of the system. Vida0007 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and Vida0007: There is no need for a disclaimer to state what is shown is the peak intensity and not the current storm intensity. We have to remember that part of this drama is just bringing the Atlantic articles into line with other basins such as Aus/Wpac which do not present current storm intensity as regularly as the Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. On second thought, that would look to be too wordy for the infobox and would be much more difficult to read. I guess the solution would be just to add the Current weather event template at the top of the system's article (although I think it is okay to not put it at the top of the current season's article). Vida0007 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone saying Beryl is 400mph

Can someone stop trolling? People on a live stream are angry and I’m trying to fix. JAFactsDude (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@JAFactsDude: That's just vandalism. Revert, and report them at [WP:AIV]] if it persists. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

~~Alright. They stopped but they named beryl “Hurricane Rick Astely” and Hurricane “Dicky” and put it at 970mph and 100mb~~ JAFactsDude (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Struck comment since it's completely unnecessary to mention what vandals are doing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No need to bring it to the talk page. Revert and report at AIV as necessary and request page protection if needed. Generally we should deny recognition and not call more attention to vandals than is strictly necessary. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tropical depression two

Tropical depression two has officially formed from invest 95L. The NHC has not updated information on the system yet. Unbannable user (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, then how do you know it's formed yet? OhHaiMark (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Satellite imagery and secondary websites, which use other NHC data Unbannable user (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

NHC should be used instead of the secondary sources since it's the most reliable. _ZZ^Z 'S 20:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, observation alone is less reliable than the NHC, especially when the observer is inexperienced in meteorology and weather. _ZZ^Z 'S 20:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a source from the NHC saying it's a tropical depression, but it is likely still being written, as it gives an error code. Unbannable user (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Would your care to provide a link to said source, please? _ZZ^Z 'S 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We wait for now: NHC will initiate advisories on Tropical Depression Two, located over the central tropical Atlantic Ocean, at 500 PM. Drdpw (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It has been announced as a td though by the NHC Unbannable user (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to provide the source? _ZZ^Z 'S 20:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's now an tropical depression according to the NHC. 2600:1700:103A:D800:C042:CABB:B3B3:C8C8 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering if it's OK to start an article, I'd say someone should probably start Draft:Hurricane Beryl (2024), since it could be a major hurricane in a few days. I hope I'm wrong, but it can't hurt to start gathering sources for preparations (which is the most useful reason for having a draft for active storms threatening land). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears that a Draft:Tropical Storm Beryl (2024) article already exists. Drdpw (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, as long as it's started somewhere. Good job folks. This is how wiki gets done. Incidentally, there's probably also a need for Draft:List of Lesser Antilles hurricanes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's now a hurricane. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While Hurricane Beryl is active right now, can we add a current storm information template on that subsection that includes a current category classification? Where is the current storm information template that is meant to be for active tropical cyclones? --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We deleted it because it violates WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT Noah, BSBA^Talk 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? The "Current Storm Info" template has a 20+ year precedent, and now yall decide it violates WP:NOTNEWS?

Can't we make an exception for this template? It certainly drives up page viewer counts. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The storm itself drives up page viewer counts. I could see an argument for the Beryl article itself, where we could use Template:Current disaster, especially since Beryl is now record-breaking, and will likely require an article within the next 24 hours. There isn't a need for any templates or the current storm info in the season article IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It existed before these policies did and mostly had no involvement from outside editors up to this point. Policy prohibits such things because Wikipedia would be liable for false information. Not to mention these updates waste the time of our editors who could be working on improving article content and coverage. It's better for everyone to simply cease covering current storm information. Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with Wikipedia and your decisions, but I understand where they are coming from. Nevertheless, should we not push back and continue to cover current storm information? How can you improve coverage without maintaining current information that can be easily build up a

substantive page? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You can input recent information, but it should be things that will be in the article in the longterm. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The current storm info would be useless. It's just increases the number of edits and wastes time with no result since it would be deleted when the storm dissipates. Editors should be focus on improving the storm's article, not updating it. _ZZ^Z 'S 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I published the Beryl draft that you all were working on. Someone was trying to copy and paste it over the old redirect. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of "active" status for storm names

In light of recent indications that it is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS to include information on the current status of storms, should that also apply to the name section? In the name list in season article, we indicate which names represent currently active storms, but isn't that a similar violation? It seems the article should only say if the name has been used or not this season. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would personally say it's not a violation. Simply indicating an event is ongoing does not appear to constitute a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Nor would I say removing indications that a storm is currently active would be constructive in any way; if a notable event is currently ongoing, including tropical cyclones, we should indicate it as such. ArkHyena (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Piggybacking on what you just said, if saying that Beryl is active violates WP:NOTNEWS, then stating that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing also violates WP:NOTNEWS. Basically what I'm saying is that ArkHyena's argument is good; saying Beryl is ongoing does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Article erroneously states Beryl became Cat5 on July 2

Beryl became Cat5 on July 1 at 11:00 PM AST, as the 11:00 AST July 1 (0300 UTC July 2) forecast reported a wind speed of 140 kt (160 mph). 24.115.255.37 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Dates and times for these purposes go by UTC. Beryl became a Category 5 at 03:00 UTC on July 2. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

ok. I think it should use dates and times for the timezone it was in when it happened, and Beryl was in AST when it became cat 5 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since we're working across multiple time zones, that would get muddled rather quickly. Weather agencies generally go by UTC as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ok 24.115.255.37 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 third consecutive season with at least one Category 5 hurricane

I have to admit. Hurricane Beryl strengthened into a Category 5 hurricane, which makes 2024 Atlantic hurricane season the "third consecutive season to feature at least one Category 5 hurricane", after Hurricanes Ian in 2022 and Lee in 2023. I'm not sure if this kind of information should be included in the lead section of this article as what I have added here. Where should we put this information? --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If a source stating that fact can be found, that tidbit can be put into the Beryl storm article. Given all that could be written in the season summary section about Beryl (and the other systems which will follow it), that detail seems a bit trivial to be frank. Drdpw (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

2016-2019 was a 4-consecutive year streak to feature at least 1 category 5 Atlantic hurricane, so this wouldn't be a record in any case. Rye998 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Images for active storms inquiry

All,

Historically any active systems have had the future storm projections similar to the below. Why are these NOAH projections not something being added and updated for the 2024 season? BeefsteakMaters (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It was removed as it violated WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. 2600:1700:103A:D800:2105:B8BD:A556:9560 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The broader argument is that wikipedia is not, nor should it be thought of as, an official source for information on current storms. Drdpw (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I also feel like that track moves into WP:Crystal Ball territory as it is a direct forecast. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but ALLLLLL of the previous hurricane seasons would post this, and it would be updated throughout the course of a storm.

e.g. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2023_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1176638553

Tropical Storm Ophelia with the map projections. This was always the stance previously, and I'm curious why change it now? BeefsteakMaters (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There were several discussions at places like ANI and the Village Pump that came to the consensus that current information should be avoided. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some non-involed editors determined that using the infobox violates WP:NOTNEWS, while involed editors state that using the infobox is wasting time and also that Wikipedia cannot be a life-saving tropical cyclone. HurricaneEdgar 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing I really dislike about this is that it completely ignores 20+ years of precedent. Current storm information and projections were here no later than 2005.

@Hurricanehink You probably know what precedent I am referring to, would you mind providing an archive of Hurricane Dennis? I vaguely remember that section being the earliest one I viewed. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody notices that they violate the policies of Wikipedia. As the editor who frequently updates the infobox, I feel that they are wasting time. HurricaneEdgar 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, 20 years of precedent means nothing because consensus can change. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, it's largely a waste of time, although IDK, we might soon have a case of a borderline Category 5 hurricane that will still be around for a few days, but isn't supposed to be as strong, so that's a case when a current infobox would be useful. But as echoed elsewhere, it appears that the longstanding practice probably went against Wikipedia policy. We aren't the news, we just write about what's in the news. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I still think it's likely to lead to confusion, but at this point I might as well drop the stick unless there is support. I had also suggested some sort of disclaimer, but I figure that will only become necessary if we get a lot of confused people in here. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was very surprising to me as I thought that decades-long practices and precedent could evoke some sort of lenient clause by the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Guess not. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I found this entire thing stupid. Sure, we don't need all the warning boxes and everything, but something that at least has the what the current status of the storm is should be used. ChessEric 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding secondary RS to NHC citations

There seems to be a disagreement between editors about whether it is appropriate to only cite the National Hurricane Center for information or add a new (or replace) the NHC references for secondary media sources. This discussion originates from the Tropical Storm Chris section.

Previous reversion of adding additional media sources next to the NHC references: [3] (specifically, see references 59-65).
Version where only NHC is referenced (a reversion of the edit above): [4] (specifically, see references 62-65).

Thoughts on which version is more appropriate? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who added the secondary sources to the section, I believe it goes to improve the article. For the reversion, HikingHurricane stated they were "Unnecessary double citations". After I pointed out that only the National Hurricane Center was being sourced for the section, Hurricanehink disagreed, saying that, "NHC advisories are the only primary source for met history". Noting that the aforementioned statement was attached with removing a "one source" template. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources and per WP:PRIMARY, Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. With that being said, Hurricanehink is correct, NHC is the only official and primary source for information in the Atlantic basin for tropical cyclones. To me, the only thing NHC produced that is not a primary-reliable source is Tropical Cyclone Reports, which are made months after the storm. So, it seems clear that per Wikipedia policy, we should not only cite NHC references for material in this article. I propose/support re-adding secondary reliable sources every now and then to help with verifiability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the NHC advisory citations in the Chris section with secondary source citations; I just removed them because it's unnecessary to have two citations for each piece of information in the met history. As for the removal of the one source tag, I didn't think that was the appropriate tag because the NHC is the only official source of information for met history. I would also like to point out that for non-land-impacting systems, the NHC is often the only available source for met history. We're going to replace all the citations in the met history with TCRs when they're released anyway, so I don't see an issue with using NHC advisories for the time being when they are the best source of met history information. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I don't agree with that because we exclusively use NCEI final reports for the tornado summaries once they come out and that same principle applies here for the meteorological history. Additionally, what other sources would you use for the MET history? Every other source is just going to say the same thing the NHC is saying. ChessEric 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Chris article?

Since its been confirmed that there were 5 deaths associated with Tropical Storm Chris, which is a large amount, could an article for the storm be necessary? There is certainly notability involving 5 deaths and a fair amount of flooding in Mexico, though before I start a draft, I'd like to hear others opinions. We could also just start a draft and see how much info there is to find. Shmego (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I was searching the talk page for a discussion on this. I have done a search of several Mexican newspapers and found sufficient evidence that Chris had a large impact as far inland as Mexico City. According to the Tropical cyclone article notability guidelines, Chris could verify under Sections 4 and 5 as it caused five fatalities and had multiple stories across multiple Mexican newspapers, but I cannot find any damage statistics. You could begin a draft and see where it goes but you would have to prove it is worthy of being in the main space.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have began a draft here, I believe there is more than enough information to have an article. Especially since there is now a sixth fatality.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note, those guidelines are more or less outdated. WP:NWX is the more current guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the draft has been moved to the namespace. That was fast. _ZZ^Z 'S 16:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding indirect deaths

Do deaths due to tornadoes and deaths due to hyperthermia / heat exposure during power outages count toward indirect storm fatalities? These seem to me to be a step removed from what are usually considered as indirect storm deaths. Drdpw (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, put it under indirect as it was the lack of power that caused the hyper/hypothermia while the lack of power was caused by the storm (presumably Beryl). Beryl itself did not inflict hyper/hypothermia on people. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Invest 97L notes

On my sandbox, I have been building up some notes for if Invest 97L becomes Debby. Feel free to add more info (especially on the Caribbean), but please back up with sources. ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Should PTC be added into the main article? If a PTC doesn't form, we don't add into the main article. And since we banned live updates since June 28, 2024, we should not have update on PTC, I think. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, active PTCs are not included. If a PTC fails to develop into a tropical system, then yes, as an other system. Drdpw (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we’ve always included active PTCs in the article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Hurricanehink mobile in this situation, the practice has been to include PTCs. IrishSurfer21 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the discussion about including PTCs be broken off into its own discussion on this talk page or the WikiProject talk page?IrishSurfer21 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No need, I was in error. Drdpw (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tropical Storm Debby (2024) has been made ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am noticing that I am struggling to find information not related to Florida; if someone could help with that, it'd be much appreciated. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I published Debby's article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ernesto draft

I have created an Ernesto draft as it is currently impacting the Leeward Islands and is forecasted to heavily impact some of the Greater Antilles and eventually Bermuda. Any expansion would be greatly appreciated. Shmego (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal summary graph

After the break in activity, do we want to put storms at the top of the graph again? ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we wait, as each column in past seasons contains 10/11 or so cyclones. Drdpw (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Colorado State University seasonal discussion

Hello,

Editors of this article, particularly the Seasonal forecasts section, may be interested in knowing that on September 3, the Colorado State University (CSU) published this document explaining the state of atmospheric conditions in the North Atlantic Ocean and how those conditions are (negatively) affecting the season's activity.

I am aware that many years ago (i.e. before 2009), CSU would issue updated monthly seasonal forecasts around this time of the year. However, this is the first time I have ever recalled the university issuing a statement like this, especially several weeks after their August forecast.

Given that CSU and multiple other organizations have issued forecasts calling for an extremely active season, I suspect (but have no sources to confirm) this document is a reflection of some concerns that their forecasts were too aggressive.

Based on this information, I support editing the Seasonal forecasts section to include some mention of CSU's latest statement. However, is there a consensus to do so by members of WP:WPTC and elsewhere in the Wikipedia community? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I just glossed over the opening pages, so Im not sure if I sound redundant. However, I have been reading about an "Atlantic La Nina". It is probably noteworthy to mention too. ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not worth mentioning it in the seasonal forecasts section as it isn't a seasonal forecast, however, it would be good to work bits of it into the Seasonal Summary section.Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw, Can we display the comment now or are we waiting for Francine? ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Francine draft

A draft on Francine has been started here. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)