Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. 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

Archive 2

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. http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

Hurricane prediction as of September 2024

As October quickly approaches, models are currently showing that the tropical Atlantic will likely experience lower than average hurricane activity for the 2024 hurricane season due to dry air from the Saharan Dust and abnormally high wind shear. Williamwang363 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot publish Original Research and this is not a place to discuss the season in general. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Forecast Ranges

The forecast shows ranges for some of the forecasts but not others. The CSU paper shows a 68% confidence interval for named storms of 19-27. The paper points out that the distribution may not be symmetric, but it is. Thus it is a reasonable guess that the 95% range is 15-31 and the 99% range is 11-35. The forecast table should present the range and an associated probability for the range of each forecast. Preferably the same probability would be used for all forecasts. Similarly the historical range should include the range stated at the same probability as the forecast. JAQUINO (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. I am decently sure that we use the numbers that they most openly use, like the ones on their first page. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

New draft for Nine

I've gone ahead and started up a draft for PoTC Nine, as it is likely to be a significant system to affect the Gulf Coast. Feel free to add info as you please. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that someone went ahead and published it earlier, but the draft should probably remain in place until there are either significant preparations for the US gulf coast, or significant impacts (possibly Cuba). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Should CyclonicWx be used as the current ACE counter?

They take a more accurate ACE count then CSU since they take into account changes in Best Track

https://cyclonicwx.com/climatology/ Hoguert (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Can it be proven that it’s a high quality reliable source? Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They have the same ACE so there is no reason to use a source of unfounded reliability to one which it is known. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Beryl and Kirk be tied in pressure in the strongest storm column?

I believe I seen some seasons where a system has lower winds than a system but have a high pressure, so usually they add both systems in their respective columns. Shouldn’t Kirk have its own column to be tied with Beryl or does it had the have a lower pressure? I guess a good argument is that even though Beryl had the same pressure, it had stronger winds so it wouldn’t be included. TheHumanFixer (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheHumanFixer You answered your own question there- since Beryl has the stronger winds of the two it has the spot in the infobox. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox most intense

Since both Kirk and Beryl reached a minimum MSLP of 934mb, should they both be mentioned in the infobox? Beryl was obviously stronger in terms of impact and wind, but see also the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season where Fiona, a category 2, had a lower MSLP than category 5 Ian and got its own section in the infobox. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If one storm has a lower pressure than the storm with the strongest winds then their information is separate in the infobox. If two storms have the same lowest pressure than the stronger one is the storm with the higher winds. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential Tropical Cyclone Eight (2024)

Hi:

Does anyone know if an article has been created about the flood in the Carolinas that this system produced?

Pierre cb (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has made a draft yet, but I'd support making a draft. There was a death related to flooding. The Wilmington National Weather Service has info on the storm, even an entire page. The storm caused significant flooding, maybe enough to warrant an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have the disambiguater? I'm pretty sure there have only been three PTC articles. ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Helene in 2018 was "Potential Tropical Cyclone Eight". So I'm not sure if the year is needed, since this one was more notable. On the other hand, if there are any PTC8's in the future, this would need to be moved anyway. Maybe something like September 2024 North Carolina storm if PTC8 (2024) is too long? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb, Have you made an article (or draft if frwiki has them) in French yet? ✶Qux yz ✶ 12:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I just integrated the few info I had into the 2024 Hurricane season article, which is enough for the time being. However, I have uploaded some images into Commons if someone has more info and want to do a draft in English. Pierre cb (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have very limited information on it myself and I believe it has been integrated into enwiki's seasonal article. On a tangential note, PTC 22 from last year did quite a bit of damage, should we look into making it an article? ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss it here: Talk: 2023 Atlantic hurricane season#PTC 22 article??? SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Milton article scope

AL92 is making its way towards Florida, however, it will be the second system in a train to impact the state with the previous I believe being the previous disturbance by the Yucatan. Should this first system receive mention in Milton's article? ✶Qux yz ✶ 10:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If it had any effects on Milton's impacts and is sourced, sure. Tavantius (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The system currently brewing in the Gulf of Mexico has complex roots, The tendrils of that origin likely will not be clear until the tropical cyclone report is published post-season. When an article on the system (Milton) is started, the met history should, for now, probably begin with the formation of the broad low yesterday. The earlier details can wait for greater clarity. Drdpw (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that AL92 has become Tropical Depression Fourteen, its met history is percolating on the season page. As Tropical Storm (probably Hurricane) Milton, it will likely push toward and hit Florida, in which case, an article will most likely be in order. Drdpw (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

~~Is Milton related to Eleven-E and is it worth it to mention? ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)~~

Already mentioned. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Have you got any sources that are linking TD 11E to future Milton, if not then it should not be mentioned until further analysis is complied by the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Milton article

Should Milton get an article early due to its imminent impacts to Florida? Tavantius (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There is already a draft for it, which is right here. _ZZ^Z 'S 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I imagine that the draft will published once the storm strengthens, and, as Hurricane Milton, approaches the Florida coast. Drdpw (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Should that be now as Milton has just became a hurricane? Tavantius (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should have an article based on anticipated impacts. It's WP:TOOSOON. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Before Milton or Helene even developed Florida declared a state of emergency for both. See Hurricane Milton#Florida for a few sources establishing notability. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Ron DeSantis must have a good psychic⸮ ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Kirk as of Oct 8

"exptratopical"? GBC (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been extratropical since oct.7 at 8 am 50.174.65.80 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Simple English

Why do we not have an article on this year’s hurricane season in the Simple English Wikipedia when we have other years? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde, its likely that simply no one has gotten around to it. ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Source on edited death toll for helene, and for milton damage total

Can someone add these sources, I edited the article to match but am admittedly terrible at writing citations.

Helene death toll- https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-death-toll-asheville-north-carolina-34d1226bb31f79dfb2ff6827e40587fc

Milton early damage estimate- https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/reinsurance/hurricane-milton-could-cost-insurers-60-billion-509128.aspx AutisticLoser (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Some digging on the damage total shows that estimate was made yesterday, before the hurricane made landfall. Thus that is not an accurate total. Wait for a more notable source like Moody’s to release their estimate later on. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

alright sounds good, didn't realize that source was outdated/inaccurate AutisticLoser (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Milton damage

Could you stop frantically updating the death toll every 5 minutes? It makes the page difficult to understand with the info changing so rapidly. We should lay for now with that 80 billion seasonal damage overall and update it after it becomes more stable. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Split out Hurricane Kirk (2024)

The discussion above is trending in an unclear discussion, so I’m proposing it formally here. I think that based on the sources listed in #Kirk article that the storm is notable enough for an article, either as a hurricane or a windstorm. There is no way that the impacts can be summarized in the hurricane article, and while they might be able to be summarized in the European windstorm section, those sections are long as it is and couldn’t take the meteorological history from the Atlantic. To slightly trim down these articles and allow the information to be in one place, plus the impacts, I am proposing a separate article for Kirk. Crete44 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, and there is a draft (as I'm sure you know) here: Draft:Hurricane Kirk (2024). It's looking quite good Shmego2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the only issue currently with the draft is there is some confusion to whether it should be named “Hurricane Kirk (2024)” or “Storm Kirk”. I believe since Kirk had some impact on the Azores and rip currents as a tropical cyclone it should remain as “Hurricane Kirk (2024)” but there may need to be a formal discussion opened about it.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I initially believed it should be storm kirk, but now that you consider the other impacts that Kirk had as a tropical cyclone, it should remain as "Hurricane Kirk (2024)" Shmego2 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Name article title Hurricane Kirk (2024) and not Storm Kirk, as it was a post tropical cyclone. Like with Hurricane Ophelia (2017) and Hurricane Lorenzo (2019). VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To everyone:

I thank y’all for fixing up my bad draft.

You’ve made my dream come true. 🥲 HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Article for Hurricane Kirk?

That Irish surfer guy told me to talk here. I think, as Hurricane Kirk is getting stronger, it may need its own article. It might become a Category 2 or 3 soon, even though it won’t touch land. The lack of affected areas may not affect the article, but please talk to me soon. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As there will most probably be neither direct land interaction nor fatalities with this tropical system, and given that its meteorological history will not likely grow too large to fit comfortably into the season article, Kirk does not meet the notability criteria for a stand-alone storm article. Drdpw (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There might be a sudden deviation where it goes west instead of north. It might devastate the Big Bend as well, so I think not. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s now a Cat 3 xD HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Kirk is going nowhere near the Big Bend region, or anywhere on the North American continent. It is, and will continue to move generally northward across the open central Atlantic, a classic Cabo Verde "fish storm." Drdpw (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What if though… you can never guarantee something in the future… HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Meteorology does not predict the impossible. At this stage, Hurricane Kirk will never become an article. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Hurricane Sam got an article, even though it was basically a fish storm, and it also would likely be a cat 4 or 5 SillyNerdo (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

great, i forgot the period. SillyNerdo (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument in this case. As it stands, Kirk-2024 is not notable for a stand-alone storm article. Drdpw (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen other topics besides weather and other stuff so i've never heard of that, but thank you for telling me about it. SillyNerdo (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Sam broke records, an extensive meteorological history section, and had tangible impacts. None of these I believe Kirk has or would have. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that Kirk is not going to, nor will ever, be notable. Out of boldness, I will change the draft the user created into a redirect since it has already been rejected. _ZZ^Z 'S 23:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it would be better for Wikipedia if the draft was deleted, which I did not notice until now. There is little to no chance that Kirk will ever become an article. _ZZ^Z 'S 23:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah, i guess there has been like 3 cat 4 hurricanes without a article, which is fair. SillyNerdo (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Could've forgotten to say, if it becomes a cat 5 hurricane, it'll have to be a page, since I don't think any cat 5 hurricanes without a page. 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

i forgot to log in, I said that comment... SillyNerdo (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Intensity alone, unless it breaks records, does not make an article notable enough for its own article. The only reason that all Cat 5s in the Atlantic have their own article is because of other significant events like their impacts or breaking meteorological records. _ZZ^Z 'S 13:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I was considering nominating for deletion but I held back because I'm lazy and I didn't want to get yelled at for biting newcomers. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Kirk may bring notable impacts to Europe as an ETC later down the line, at which point an article for Kirk could be justified. Of course, we'll have to wait for these impacts to happen, but it's something to watch out for. Ark Hyena (it/its) 19:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Slightly tangential: I did see that the NHC issued hurricane warnings for the Atlantic Ocean, is that of note to mention? ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Ping|Quxyz}} There is no need to mention that the NHC issued hurricane warnings for the Atlantic Ocean since there is nothing noteworthy about it and we are a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Jason Rees (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How the heck did I cause this whole argument over a hurricane? HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Less an argument, more of a recurring topic that comes up every year. Every named storm deserves to get some sort of notice on Wikipedia, I think we're all in agreement of that, and the season articles are the perfect places to start them. Active storms are exciting, I think we can also agree about that. Let's see if Kirk ends up causing significant enough impacts from its surf - otherwise, let's keep working on the season article and other topics. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw somewhere that Kirk might turn to London and Paris, but please hold up on deleting my article so that we can see the results of Hurricane Kirk. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there could be an article of Hurricane Kirk, possibly if there's more then 5 deaths in Europe probably. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/143626.shtml?tswind120#wcontents HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

the wind might be a t.s. (Tropical Storm) HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I also saw that there is a tropical disturbance that has a 40% chance or less of forming. Will this form into Hurricane Milton or Tropical Storm Milton? HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@SillyNerdo and @HurricaneKirk2024 This page is for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for speculation on the hurricane season or talking about the general subject (wee WP:FORUM). Unless you have a specific comment regarding improving the article please refrain from commenting further. Jay Tee⛈️ 20:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I got caught off-guard, I am so sorry. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kirk article

With Kirk likely to affect Europe significantly, could an article for the storm be necessary? I imagine that warnings will be issued soon, and the storm has a decent meteorological history, I think a draft for the storm could be started in the next few days as it approaches Europe. 96.236.149.251 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah, no need unless there are significant impacts. More likely, it'll just be a European windstorm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I started this xD yeah I agree there should not be an article for Kirk HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would wait to see what it does in Europe as if it does enough, it could have its own article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

it’s already dead. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Its remnants will impact Europe. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Impact Europe as a new extratropical European windstorm, not as extra tropical ex-Kirk itself. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

so it’l die then reform as smth else? HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Merger, actually. Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ok sorry HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I confirm that name of this cyclone will stays same. European weather centre have new policy that ex-hurricanes hold his name. it's easy for European. I have read now news about ex-hurricane will soon in France as storm Krik. Edwtie (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've actually been working on the draft for it, and it is slowly improving. I would appreciate it being kept open for now or moved to my sandbox if that's allowed or even possible. Shmego2 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

make it kept open, I think it could evolve HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It still doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I do not see why the draft should be kept open. _ZZ^Z 'S 17:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If we could find more information on it, we could make it fit. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If European windstorm Kirk were to have a significant impact in Europe, that would be a separate article from hurricane Kirk, which did nothing noteworthy during its lifespan. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe Kirk has reached that criteria now. Already a fatality and the damage in Iberia is very significant.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: I moved the page to Draft:Storm Kirk (2024), as the notability of this system, if any, will be as an European windstorm, not as a tropical cyclone. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I was considering doing that. However, I imagine the meteorological history will be almost all about it as a tropical system? Shmego2 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it notable. The draft is already 8k bytes and I seriously doubt it could be and should be expanded. _ZZ^Z 'S 18:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could make it a subsection of the Kirk windstorm HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

One exists: 2024–25 European windstorm season#Ex-Hurricane Kirk. Drdpw (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

IrishSurfer21: Why did you revert my draft page move? It has already been established through the draft review process that Hurricane Kirk was not notable. If this system becomes notable, it will be as an European windstorm, Storm Kirk. If there is to be a standalone draft article, it should therefore, by precedent, be titled “Draft:Storm Kirk.’ Drdpw (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no consensus for a change in the article name. Also, regardless of the status of Kirk as it impacted Europe it is “Hurricane Kirk”. When the National Hurricane Center releases their TCR and notes the European impact it will be referred to as the remnants of Hurricane Kirk. In fact, several of the news agencies sourced in the article refer to the system as “Ex-Hurricane Kirk”. Please do not make any major page moves without a proper discussion on the talk page.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also please link the precedent, because storms such as ~~Lorenzo 2019~~ and Leslie 2018 were both listed under their original tropical names.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Precedents: Hatlestad Slide (Hurricane Maria 2005); October 2021 nor'easter (Tropical Storm Wanda 2021). Drdpw (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw and Zzzs: The storm is fundamentally notable for causing a fatality and extensive damage. Whether or not it's titled a hurricane or windstorm can be settled in an RM. --Crete44 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock

There's a decent amount of news buzz on Kirk but I don't know how much of it is really of substance for an article. The storm isn't "fundamentally notable" for one death and I see no evidence atm of extensive damage. Jay Tee⛈️ 16:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

One death isn’t notable in, say, the case of Tropical Storm Vicky where the storm also produces no damage. This is not like that. The storm also resulted in over 300,000 countries and caused damage in multiple countries. In addition, the storm brought an increase in wind energy and record flooding in France. This storm is certainly more notable then Tropical Storm Harold, Tropical Storm Ophelia (2023) and Tropical Storm Philippe (2023), and seeing as they all survived merge discussions, there is precedent for tropical storms with relatively minor impacts to get individual articles.--Crete44 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Crete is 100% correct. Like he said, the fatality doesn't make this storm notable. Its the damage caused in Europe. Shmego2 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Vicky actually was not given an article because it was the tropical wave that caused the fatality and not Vicky itself. The argument about Vicky is entirely invalid in this case.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The argument concerning Harold, Ophelia and Philippe is a WP:OSE argument as well. But considering the length of the draft I can now see the grounds for a Kirk article. I didn't know if anyone was going to find that much information on the storm until now. Jay Tee⛈️ 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The remnants were more important, not the hurricane itself. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware. Jay Tee⛈️ 23:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the draft seems long enough, especially when considering its Meteorological history section is woefully outdated. Ark Hyena (it/its) 02:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSE literally states While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Crete44 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing your entire comment and have already agreed that an article is warranted now that more information has been found on the storm. But the part of your comment where you claim Kirk is more notable than Harold, Ophelia and Philippe and therefore deserves to be kept reflects a common OSE argument; it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". Jay Tee⛈️ 23:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In the context I thought I was saying, I didn’t mean to cause this OSE argument. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to Crete44's comments not yours. And this is less of an argument and more of a mild policy disagreement. Jay Tee⛈️ 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

TD 15 is forming, and we need a draft!

Invest 94L is about to form into a tropical depression, and I have a draft starting for 94L. Does anyone agree with my choice? @Hurricane Clyde and everyone else on this topic, please reply. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think a draft should be made, then you should make it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely WP:TOOSOON to do so. Even after a tropical depression forms, if in fact one does, it will still be too soon to draft a storm article. Drdpw (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Too soon for an article, never too soon for a draft. WP:NDRAFT states drafts aren't held to the same standards of notability (nor sanity) of mainspace articles and I see no reason for a page entitled Draft:Tropical Depression 15 (2024) to be put through MfD. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s wait until the depression forms. Still a little too soon. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

too late already made a draft HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

better early than late ⏰ HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It'll be a notable storm if it forms, why not start compiling information now, as George Memulous said. Shmego2 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am doing just that in my sandbox. The likelihood that this wave will develop into a tropical depression is diminishing however, and that will likely not happen. The same goes for the low now off the coast of Nicaragua. Yes, if a tropical depression forms from either of these systems, the resulting storm may indeed become notable. It is way too soon to tell though, as we cannot predict how disturbances will evolve. Drdpw (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Will you help me (like you did my Kirk draft) on this draft? HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. At the moment, I agree with Drdpw, who is working in his sandbox. The chances of it forming are diminishing, so, as he suggested, I think we should wait at the moment. Shmego2 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is too early for an article, the storm hasn’t even formed yet. See Wikipedia:Crystal for more info. !Insendieum! ✉️ 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

and besides, it’s already about to die. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand now why people have been telling you to hold off on starting a draft, that it is too early to do so? Drdpw (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah… HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe instead 95L? it's really close to forming. SillyNerdo (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, 95L, even if it becomes TD15, does not merit draft article at this time, for the reasons stated above. Drdpw (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

no for like later once it possibly becomes Nadine. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well that completely depends on how notable it is. !Insendieum! ✉️ 21:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's going to hit the capital of Belize :/ SillyNerdo (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Was going to reword the other users prelim draft for Fifteen but thanks Drdpw! ViridLeWiki (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some guidelines for when a tropical cyclone becomes notable: Wikipedia:Notability (weather)#Tropical cyclones. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

it just became PTC 15 HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft on PTC 15 already started!

The draft: Draft:Potential Tropical Cyclone Fifteen (2024) HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

when the clock strikes nigh, UPDATE it. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You seriously need to know that one should not create tropical cyclone articles BEFORE they become notable like the draft you created right now. _ZZ^Z 'S 02:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Then, what was the point of compiling information on it? Where do I store it? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a point. You just stored it in the wrong place. You can store it in the appropriate section in this article, the draft Hurricane Kirk mentioned, or your own personal sandbox until the disturbance becomes notable enough to merit its own article. _ZZ^Z 'S 02:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Please stop replying to this comment as this discussion has been morally resolved. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

BoppySillyMcGoof has already created the article in mainspace at Tropical Depression Fifteen (2024), which appears to be TOOSOON since the system isn't even a tropical depression yet (according to the NHC). CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, I know, just let it pass, please. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Off topic conversation

@BoppySillyMcGoof Are you an alternate account of @HurricaneKirk2024? There's a large amount of crossover between your editing histories and you appear to have responded on HK2024's behalf in this thread. While there's technically nothing wrong with operating a second account as a side project it isn't advisable this early in your editing career as it can easily fall into sockpuppetry. Jay Tee⛈️ 05:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was actually on when he was on, send him to SPI. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, he isn’t a sockpuppet, but, just to make sure, send him to SPI. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I just realized, he doesn’t word stuff like me… HE’S NOT A SOCKPUPPET HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What just happened? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Tropical Storm Nadine is 45 mph and 1002 millibars by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I am not familiar with changing templates, but please do. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@HurricaneKirk2024 , WHAT IS TROPICAL STORM OSCAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@BoppySillyMcGoof Can we please do our best to not spam the talk page with inconsequential/off-topics messages or ask others to make an edit that will likely be made within minutes. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That statement was about the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season and can be included here. I will continue to notify people of the changes on Tropical Storm Nadine on its talk page, possibly on this one. Although, you did start a conversation that a user had to collapse as it was off-topic. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

BoppySillyMcGoof – Please stop notifying people of the changes on Tropical Storm Nadine, or any other storm system. It is more disruptive than it is constructive, and is a rather pointless action. Drdpw (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we please not WP:SHOUT. :) Sir MemeGod  23:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, with TOOSOON. I'd highly suggest not making things too soon and publishing them. Back when I was a new editor aswell (April) I consistently pushed for the Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1-3, 2024 article to be created, and I was bit pretty severely by two separate people, which still affects how I edit to this day. I'd suggest waiting until an article is warranted to avoid potential hostile interactions with others. Just some advice, I don't want any editors discouraged because of others. :) Sir MemeGod  23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am very confused. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that the draft feature was available. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will repeat what others have said regarding the early creation of the article: article or draft creation on tropical cyclones or even weather events before they become notable (if they even become notable, at least) is mainly discouraged. Notability can be established through, for example, the impacts of a tropical cyclone over on land and significant, reliable coverage of it, and that's why we have the general notability guideline – this applies to tropical cyclones (tropical cyclones that stay out to sea and do not cause damage are not notable, despite the coverage they receive – it's routine). It's also why there's an essay on notability guidelines for tropical cyclones: WP:NWXTC. I'll add on to what Zzzs said as well: it's also why sections on the respective season(s) of weather events exist, especially for tropical cyclones. Editors can also use their own respective personal sandboxes to draft future weather-related articles and events as well. There isn't a need to create a draft, however, for weather events that simply haven't developed yet or in the stages of development that do not receive coverage that establishes notability of the specific event. This applies to the draft above: Draft:Potential Tropical Cyclone Fifteen (2024). Wait until notability is established of the respective weather event to create a draft, or if it satisfies some of the criteria over on NWXTC. Same goes for Hurricane Kirk (2024) in the early stages of development – again, wait for notability to be established of the hurricane/tropical cyclone. While it certainly does now because of its impacts and the amount of coverage received, I simply think it was way too early for it to be created. There is no need in rushing to create an article, as well. It's just too soon. ~ Tails Wx 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I appreciate it! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nadine and Oscar articles

Should we make articles on them, as Nadine has affected Central America while Oscar is expected to scrape Eastern Cuba as a hurricane? Tavantius (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Each of them already has a draft article started. Drdpw (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Tropical Storm Nadine (2024)

Courtesy link: Draft:Hurricane Oscar (2024) ✶Qux yz ✶ 14:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I came here to ask if Oscar would have an article. It might already be semi notable for being such a small hurricane and because the forecasts seem to have been badly off, going from having a 10% development chance to a Category 1 hurricane in about a day or 2 and only being detected when a plane flew to investigate it. Plus, it's predicted to strike Cuba at a time when the country is experiencing blackouts etc. Fourdots2 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can find independent sources documenting it's poor forecasting, we might be able to weave it into the article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here maybe? And also on the NHC website https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/oscar-hits-cuba-as-one-of-the-smallest-hurricanes-on-record Fourdots2 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/10/the-worlds-tiniest-hurricane-may-have-formed-this-weekend-near-cuba/ Fourdots2 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/10/20/storm-tracker-hurricane-oscar-path-spaghetti-models/75763514007/

Article about possible devastating impacts Fourdots2 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved the Oscar article, as I believe a lot more information will come out once power gets restored across Cuba. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts on a Nadine article? The storm doesn't seem to have caused any significant damage, though there have been three deaths attributed to it. The draft is presently at 622 words. More incidental impact details could be found and added to bump that figure up. Also, its remnants did contribute to the formation of Kristy in the EPac. Drdpw (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
~~In the draft's current state, I would object.~~ Heck, I'm even questioning Oscar's article. Going back to Nadine, there might be a lot more information but it's hard for me to check due to the language barrier. I have collected several broadcasting stations in preparation for Nadine but it lacks northern CA states as I didn't expect Nadine to pull a Lisa. If someone wants to add those nations, feel free to do so. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I went on a previous glance at the draft and I just assumed that 600 words was enough for meteorological history and a paragraph, I would say that Nadine could pass NWEATHER though it might see some objection. It would definitely be one of those articles used in other-stuff-exists arguments. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm expanding it. Give me a sec. ~ Tails Wx 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it there for now as I've got some work to do. It looks in good shape and mainspace-ready. Do feel free to expand it further should any further updates or information be found, though! (Courtesy pings: @Drdpw, @Quxyz, @Tavantius). ~ Tails Wx 02:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
thanks :) it looks really good (the article I mean) Fourdots2 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nadine publish?

Draft:Tropical Storm Nadine (2024) I think that it’s sufficient enough to be a start-class article. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

why is nadine article not finished yet Joseph Ca98 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please wait. I've reviewed it, however, an admin will have to delete it prior to it being accepted. Tavantius (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nadine and Kristy

While normally I wouldn't ask this question, the NHC BT data for Kristy begins with Nadine as a tropical depression, meaning Nadine and Kristy are the same system. How should we name Nadine-Kristy with that info in mind? Tavantius (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Such an article would be titled Tropical Storm Nadine and Hurricane Kristy. Is that what you are proposing? I was toying with such an idea over the weekend in my sandbox. Drdpw (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't need an article for Kristy since it has not caused damage. An article for Nadine without Kristy in the title is fine, and in the history section we can mention that its remnants contributed to the formation of Kristy. This has been done several times before. For example: Hurricane Ernesto (2012) caused the formation of Tropical Storm Hector (2012), yet Hector doesn't have an article because it caused no damage. INeedSupport ^:3 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No. In that situation, Ernesto merely contributed to the formation of Hector. In this case, the remnant circulation of Nadine directly regenerated into Kristy, like what happened with Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. Tavantius (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh Lord let's not open up another Amanda/Cristobal can of worms. Anyway, I concur with @INeedSupport, Kristy appears to not be notable in its own right so I think keeping Nadine in its own separate article and maybe mentioning Kristy towards the end of the met history is best. If Kristy does prove notable then follow the Amanda/Cristobal precedent and title the article accordingly. Jay Tee⛈️ 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh Lord let's not open up another Amanda/Cristobal can of worms.

What do you mean like worms worms or the ones in fake cans Joseph Ca98 (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Kristy is a classic eastern Pacific fish storm which will (most assuredly) not merit an article. Also, absent any damage/impact, the only reason to consider a move to an article with both Nadine and Kristy in the title would be if the NHC issues a report down the road stating that the two were in fact one tropical system. Drdpw (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Would Kristy theoretically be notable if it reaches Category 5 intensity? Shmego2 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It generally depends on the notability of the meteorological history, which is usually determined by records. A fish storm intensifying into a Category 5 is not notable enough for an article by its own. _ZZ^Z 'S 00:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll note here that not every Category 5 hurricane has a stand-alone article – it largely depends on the records and the impacts associated with it, as some of it is aforementioned above. Hurricane Patsy (1959) did achieve Category 5 strength, but it stayed out to sea and remained as a fish storm despite its powerful strength; this might apply here actually since Kristy may be similar to Patsy in terms of its track and meteorological synopsis (Kristy has not reached Category 5 status just yet, noting for the record). One last thing: although there's a ton of news sources out there on Kristy rapidly intensifying, virtually all of them are just routine news coverage of the hurricane. So unless something drastic occurs with Kristy in terms of its peak strength (and if it does set meteorological records, which I'm doubtful for now), I don't think we'll need an article for it at the moment. ~ Tails Wx 00:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Its slowly weakening, so not Cat 5. YET. (oh, i hate that word) Joseph Ca98 (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Screw that, it became one already, also, @LemonJuiceisSour, hi. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has opened a discussion on this topic has been opened at: Talk:2024 Pacific hurricane season#Kristy article. Drdpw (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
that was me, i didnt expect it to go to that far up, since I didn't think it'd become a cat 5 at all (I did for a tiny bit) SillyNerdo (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Leslie article

Because Leslie affected Europe, and caused a little damage, and took a life. I think it needs an article. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

build onto my OLD OLD draft? Pls? LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

that draft is deleted :| LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

While you are correct, damage caused by Leslie was minimal compared to Kirk. However, if you pile up enough information about Leslie, specifically more noteworthy impacts in Europe, there is a chance and article could be necessary. Looking at it right now, the season article works fine as the best way to explain Leslie. Shmego2 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

i knew this was going to happen for a leslie article to be proposed :/ SillyNerdo (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any information about Leslie that isn't in the season article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

not really, tbh LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There you go. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink, that was kind of rude… LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean it that way, just meant, "there you go", seems to resolve this discussion here over whether Leslie needs an article. You also seemed really eager to have the article, "build onto my OLD OLD draft? Pls?", even though there wasn't any information missing. This kind of discussion happens every year with just about every storm, I'm just trying to wrap this one up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

(sarcastically) Well, thanks, everyone. You were a BIG help. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides, was this just like a second mention of a Leslie submission? Me, then you? LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been talk about with this topic too.

Leslie does NOT need an article. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well look, if a storm doesn't need an article, would you prefer no one told you and let you chase a lost cause? Shmego2 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ig so… also that was a bit rude LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That was a valid question. What better place to hash out whether a particular tropical cyclone meets Wikipedia:Notability (weather)#Tropical cyclones and whether to create standalone article for it than The season talk page. Drdpw (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@LemonJuiceIsSour I don't care if you think it dosen't need an article. I'm doing an article. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OK folks, just as a reminder, we're writing an encyclopedia here, and we all need to get along. Joseph Ca98 (talk · contribs), you've been told by several users that a Leslie article isn't needed, meaning it'll likely get merged as soon as you publish it. If you need ideas for articles that need work, I can let you know some, but Leslie isn't one of them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

sure then Joseph Ca98 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, I know by experience that @Hurricanehink is truly right. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

stop being rude Joseph Ca98 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

you’re the rude one here, Joseph. Also, I pinged you on purpose. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 15:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yall explain why now Leslie has $100 million in damages but Kirk still has $10.8 million and yall can't reply to that Joseph Ca98 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That figure may need further investigation, in a separate conversation, as there was a separate successor system involved. Drdpw (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Image for Hurricane Oscar

I was wondering if we should change the image of Oscar in the infobox. It currently shows Oscar at peak wind intensity. However, @CooperScience added another image showing Oscar at peak pressure intensity, and in my opinion Oscar looks more organized than the other image. What do you think we should use?

Peak Winds
Peak Pressure

INeedSupport ^:3 16:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Peak Pressure, because like you said, it looks more organized, and I think it just looks better for the article. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer pressure as the main image but in Oscar's article, both should be presented. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Peak pressure does look more stable. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright I keep seeing these two photos being swapped again and again throughout ~~two weeks~~ a few days. This discussion appears to have a clear consensus, though I would like to see more users discuss about this. Does anybody object to the peak pressure image? INeedSupport ^:3 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection here, only support for the 'peak pressure' picture for the reasons stated above. Drdpw (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also support peak pressure. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's kind of funny that everybody says its the tiniest hurricane on record, but peak pressure makes it look like some other hurricane is smaller. Wikipedia, I am also supporting pressure in a way, so pls don't cling to me. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the peak wind intensity picture, that was taken on 1700Z, around an hour before the 1800Z advisory In which Oscar was first designated as a hurricane, with winds of 80 mph, the peak wind intensity would actually be at 2100Z. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm good point. Let me update that info on Oscar's article. INeedSupport 🎃 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)