Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

Question

Can somebody explain why the average number of named storms is listed as 15.5, a normal season is defined as 6 to 14 storms, and the prediction for this season is an 'above average' 14 storms? This doesn't seem to add up. Granite26 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The average is 11.[1] Where are you reading that the average is 15.5? Hopefully not in our article! Plasticup ^T/C 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"as 9.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 major hurricanes" which is adds up to 15.5, unless those numbers are inclusive. If they are, that should probably be made a little clearer, because it really sounds like they are additive.Granite26 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They are inclusive. A major hurricane must first be a hurricane, and before that a tropical storm. Sometimes storms officially skip a step, but they must meet and then exceed the requirements for any lower categorization. --Patteroast 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Items in Current events sidebar

I found it useful to periodically check the current year's Atlantic hurricane season article via Current events. Now it's been removed because the tropical cyclone seasons themselves are not a natural disaster. I think it's still an important enough ongoing meteorological phenomenon to have visible in that section.

It was thought that only the cyclones themselves should be linked from there, but I found that unclear, as it's not always obvious which basin they're in. For example, Severe Tropical Storm Fitow and Tropical Storm Gil, the first being a Pacific typhoon, the second a Pacific hurricane.

And now it's thought that cyclones shouldn't be listed until they're actually a disaster. I disagree as I think tropical storms are of sufficient importance as long as they have the potential to threaten land, especially considering preparations and warnings. TransUtopian 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now That we have Felix as a Cat 5 it is up on the current events sidebar - Also if you want to keep an eye on alll the seasons We have a portal contiaing a current events bar which is updated Regually Jason Rees 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<searches> Ah. Portal:Tropical cyclones Okay, that is centralised for cyclones though, rather than current events in general, which was continually updated until a week ago.

I still disagree that active hurricane/typhoon seasons shouldn't be in the sidebar - as worthy central and continually updated articles - as well as any possible landfalling named cyclone. For example, I didn't know there was a Henriette projected to hit Mexico until I looked at another site. <checks> It's among the Current events in the main section, but one of many stories. It would be far more relevantly visible in the Natural disasters sidebar. TransUtopian 09:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is something for Portal talk:Current events. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Felix-Ivo Sand box

I was wondering whether it would be worth doing a sandbox for the small possibility that Felix crosses over into the pacific basin. Im not expecting it to as most of the current models seem to be indicating a trend to simply to dissipate over the northern half of mexico. The reason i brought this up was due to the GFDL model showing a rather more southernly trend however i am willing to accept this to be an anomoly (Seddon69 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

In the extremely unlikely event Felix crosses into the Pacific basin, dissipates, and develops into Ivo, it can be worked into the existing Felix article. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If Felix crosses over while staying at least a TD the whole time, the name remains Felix in the Pacific and the article continues. If it dissipates and the remnants redevelop, it becomes Ivo (and that should become a different storm in the 2007 Pacific hurricane season article with only a brief mention). CrazyC83 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

kk thank you for clearing that up for me (Seddon69 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Felix warning

Is that still valid? It's been at least a day since NHC even mentioned it in the TWO. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Acctully Eric they have mentioned Felix but in the Epac TWO but i would say take it down Jason Rees 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NHC issued an 'Atlantic SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT'

See [2]. Should this be included into the timeline? -bitterMan.lha 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah. --CWY2190 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No. These don't always result in tropical cyclones (though they do more often than not). —Verrai 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle Sandbox

User:Hurricanehink/Gab07 - When TS warnings come out, of when anyone think it is an appropriate time, I have a Gabrielle sandbox ready. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to the cut-and-paste move, there was a block created when I attempted to move STS Gabrielle to its now-proper location at TS Gabrielle. An administrator is needed to make the move. CrazyC83 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I comes before H

Any earlier season when something like this has happened?? Georgia guy 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit unusual, given that both depressions formed at the same time (so in the best track, Ingrid would appear before Humberto). However, it happened in 1979 in a similar situation. A tropical disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico was operationally classified Elena before a disturbance in the tropical Atlantic was designated Frederic; in the best track, Elena appears before Frederic, but they found out that Frederic both became a tropical depression and a tropical storm before Elena. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As of now, TD8 should be listed before Humberto as 8 comes before 9 and only one is named. Should TD8 become Ingrid (possibly at 5 pm), then it should be moved into alphabetical order. CrazyC83 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

theres been a later season than what Hurricane hink said but it was in the Wpac in 2005 and in that we have the storms listed by tropical Depression Number so should we have it bye the TD number or alphabetical order ? Jason Rees 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in order of formation, not alphabetically. This season has Erick before Dalila for that reason. Good kitty 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that with both storms now named, it would be easier to read if they were in alphabetical order. CrazyC83 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Storms are listed chronologically in all the other season articles. There's no need to do it differently now. You can also mention that Ingrid formed first (sort of even though they came at the same update) but received it's name after Humberto. Good kitty 02:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Keep it Ingrid then Humberto. ---CWY2190^TC 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess some people don't listen. If a named storm crosses from the Eastern Pacific, should it be placed in alphabetical order too? And all those articles with CPAC storms popping up in the middle of them should be rearranged too. Good kitty 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see why it shouldn't be alphabetical. Humberto got a name before Ingrid, which seems like a pretty good reason to order by name. The NHC didn't declare TD9 "Ingrid" and hold "Humberto" for TD8; they declared Humberto the 8th named storm of the season, and Ingrid the 9th named storm of the season. 8th comes before 9th, and H comes before I. Who cares which of them got a TD designation first? DOSGuy 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW. 1. ---CWY2190^TC 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the NHC messed up when designating the TD numbers since Humberto is 90L and formed as a disturbance before 91L [08L], if anyone understands what I am saying, LOL. I believe the WPAC did this last year with Saomai and Maria it being number assigned out of order by the JTWC. -- グリフオーザー 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that NHC just gave Humberto 09L because it was the later to be reconised as a tropical depresion aqnd the first to be reconised as a TS. Jason Rees 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this blog about ingrid on the USA Todays website and says that in the event that event of multiple tropical depressions, the first system to reach tropical storm strength gets the next name on the alphabetical list. So it does not matter which tropical depression it forms out of since the NHC determines the order of of the storms by the alphabet (8th named storm , 9th named storm, etc....) and by the date the storm formed (since both storms formed on the same day, they [the NHC] might retroactively place them back in order). Storm05 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, the boxed list of storms near the top of the page signifying storms and their intensities has Ingrid after Humberto, while a similar, elongated box at the bottom has the same information, except mixes up Humberto and Ingrid. Which one is correct, and which one should be changed? IPchanges^{the box} 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The one on the bottom was right; I fixed the box near the top. Ingrid should be before Humberto. On the other hand, if the National Hurricane Center, for some reason, lists Humberto before Ingrid (like in the monthly summary or TCR listing), we might consider changing the order. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Storm names section? Should we put Ingrid before Humberto there, too? DOSGuy 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that is fine, as that section shows the lists of names provided for the season (including those unused). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Storm names list and the box at the bottom ought to match. The storm names are listed alphabetically in anticipation that storms get named in alphabetical order. We're saying that the H this year is called Humberto and the I this year is called Ingrid, regardless of which of them formed first. It's informational, and not intended to communicate anything more than that. I think the box at the bottom is saying that the H this year was a Category 1 hurricane and the I this year was a Tropical Storm, regardless of which storm formed first. It's not a timeline, but a record of how strong each storm in the alphabet was. Leave the numbers wherever they lie, but the letters go in order. Am I wrong? Is it informational -- an "at a glance" reference to how strong each storm in the alphabet got, or is it really a timeline? DOSGuy 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont care..

I comes before H is the issue here? who cares.. Humberto needs an article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big texas lump (talk • contribs)

it has one... CrazyC83 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Tropical Storm Humberto (2007)

As far as I can tell, Humberto is a completely non-notable tropical storm, and should therefore be merged into the main page for the hurricane season Bluap 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the storm is active, meaning there will be more information coming in, which means the article can be significantly expanded. Secondly, and more importantly, it is going to make landfall on the United States as a moderately strong tropical storm; though that doesn't necessarily make it a notable tropical storm, it does make it notable enough for an article. The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has agreed that all named storms are inherently notable, provided that sufficient information exists for the article. As there will be plenty of information within 24 hours, I strongly oppose merging it. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While I would dispute that all storms are inherently notable (we never came to a consensus on that), Humberto shouldn't be merged if there's information available (which there is). --Coredesat 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, this storm is nothing. You will not break my heart by merging it into the whole season article. After having the experience of what Rita did in 2005, storms like these can be combined together. Merge it if others agree. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside of what WPTC decided, merging all the information from Humberto here would overwhelm the article. That is why we have separate storm subarticles: so we can maintain a season outlook in this one. Additionally, having subarticles for the rest of the storms, and not this one, would seem unbalanced. So, to make it explicit, no merge. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that, keep them separate then. You convinced me! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's possibly Humberto may be a hurricane before landfall, so there surely will be impact details coming in tomorrow. Oppose any merge here. CrazyC83 04:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe that all named tropical storms are inherantly notable, Humberto is now officially a hurricane, which I do believe makes it notable, so I am withdrawing the merge proposal. Bluap 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid sandbox?

Should one be created? Even though it will likely be a while before an article is needed...after all this may be going fishing... CrazyC83 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. But if someone really wants to make it in their userspace than fine. ---CWY2190^TC 02:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, unless something crazy happens, Ingrid won't need an article. Of course, it always slays me how our resident hurricanists keep churning out articles for the most pitiful of storms. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

People should bear in mind the disambiguation page for the name Ingrid. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can be sure that after the season, with the TCR and all data available, that the article Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007) will be created... CrazyC83 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Lee, anyone? It will be created just to not leave a gap in the season subarticles... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, all bets are off if the ex-Ingrid wave manages to regenerate (not expected in the short term at least)... CrazyC83 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Subtropical depression Ten

Trackmap at commons, Image:2007 10L 5-day track.gif --213.155.231.26 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'm working on an article on the depression; I'll wait until it dissipates before publishing. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Landfall near Fort Walton Beach, Florida. NHC has passed off the advisories to the HPC. 66.217.33.181 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone by HPC now Jason Rees 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerry's ACE

Why does the final entry on Jerry's ACE calc table just say Low? It was at tropical storm strength so surely its final advisory's ACE counts towards its total. Jamie|C 11:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Its last advisory said, "JERRY IS NO LONGER A TROPICAL CYCLONE", and since ACE measures tropical cyclones, I don't think it should be included. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it was a 40 kt tropical low at that point, although it did reach 40 kt at one point while still a tropical storm (at 2145 UTC). CrazyC83 18:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lorenzo

After the rapid deepening (could become a hurricane this afternoon), an article will almost certainly be needed. Is a sandbox in the works? CrazyC83 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a sandbow being worked on atm Tropical Storm Lorenzo. Feel free to change and modify as this is my first attempt at this Seddon69 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good start; just need preps and impact before moving to Hurricane Lorenzo (2007). As for Karen, an article likely will not be needed anytime soon as no land is threatened. (Although after the season one will surely be created, along with ones for Ingrid and Jerry) CrazyC83 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, feel free to publish it once there are preps or impact. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NHC said that Karen was a hurricane yesterday. So Lorenzo is not actually the fourth one. Good kitty 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably was, and a mention has been made on the Karen section suggesting it likely was, but officially it is currently recorded as Tropical Storm Karen (60 kt peak intensity) until the TCR comes out or the NHC site updates the archives calling it "Hurricane Karen". As a result, it should be left as a TS on here for now. CrazyC83 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How quickly did Lorenzo form? Currently there is a mention of Humberto's rapid intensification in the beginning of the article. Did Lorenzo beat this statistic? Will this need to be changed in the article? SargeAbernathy 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not from formation to hurricane, but from TD to hurricane near land, it appears that Hurricane Lorenzo beat the record by about four or five hours. IPchanges^{the box} 00:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Operationally, it went from TD to hurricane in 6 hours and 10 minutes (it may be revised in the TCR, but it was definitely less than 12 hours - Recon confirmed a TD at 7 am CDT.) CrazyC83 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that's one of the most rapid intensifications to hurricane strength ever anyway, regardless of proximity to land. It's almost like skipping TS. Anyone want to put it up (I'm no good at anything but editing)? IPchanges^{the box} 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert war on the button bar

An unnecessary revert war broke out at Template:2007 Atlantic hurricane season buttons, and instead of blocking people for breaking the WP:3RR, I decided to protect the page. Guys, come on... 14 reverts in one day??? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be in the same order as the storms listing on the page? I think Ingrid should be before Humberto, in that case. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree with Hurricanehink. - JVG 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the order the storms are placed. Since there seems to be no disagreement here, even after a couple of days, I'll unprotect the template. That said, if there's more edit warring in that page, I'll begin enforcing the Three-revert rule. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Declaring storms inactive

I just want to go on record that I think it was a mistake to declare Lorenzo inactive and remove the "current status" window without posting Advisory 14 for at least a few hours. I previously posted my objection to this policy at Talk:2007_Pacific_hurricane_season#Declaring_storms_inactive. The NHC posted an advisory because the storm was still active, and was wreaking havoc and endangering lives. Apparently our policy is to never display the final advisory for any storm, and I think that's wrong. The advisory was issued because it was intended to be read and heeded. I think we should remove storms from the "active" list when the NHC does. DOSGuy 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I was the one who removed it, and it hadn't actually said "dissipating" or "remnant low" so it was still a TD at 4 pm. You have a good point, although that should be up for debate. The current storm and warning mentions remain until the direct effects are over, even if the storm has dissipated (although except for storms like Katrina with long-lasting flood effects, that is usually over within a couple days). CrazyC83 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for opening the floor to debate, and my frustration was never aimed at you personally. I never appreciated the power of tropical cyclones until Katrina. Now that I understand them better, this is one of my pet projects and I just want to keep everyone informed. DOSGuy 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Lorenzo is no longer a tropical cyclone, it should not be considered one in the pages. Thus, it should be inactive, though having the warning template until the NHC takes it off might not be a bad idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that as soon as the NHC issues an advisory that says that it's going to be the final advisory, we don't bother to post the advisory, we just change the template and indicate that the storm is inactive. The advisory isn't just telling everyone that the storm is no longer a cyclone; it has location, wind speed, movement, anything that someone affected by the storm needs to know about. I'm just saying that I think an advisory is issued for a reason, and it makes sense to update the current information to reflect that advisory until the information in it is no longer current. If the storm is still important enough to issue an advisory about, it must be noteworthy enough to update in the article. How we actually do that may be debatable, but I don't see what the big rush is to remove the current information. An advisory that issued only a few minutes ago, or even a few hours ago, is still timely. I'm probably not qualified to add anything more to the discussion than this, so I'll leave it up to others to decide. DOSGuy 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, having the warning information would become outdated by 6 hours after the final advisory. Additionally, the coordinates and information would be for something open-ended, without any updates going to happen. I guess it's a preference thing, but for something that will not be updated (unless another advisory is actually issued) I don't think it should be put in, given that the storm is effectively done at that point. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Repeating what I've just posted on Talk:2007 Pacific hurricane season) While it's not as important with Pacific cyclones as it is with Atlantic ones, on more than one occasion the NHC simply "cuts its losses" and hands it off to the HPC while the storm is starting a transition (and in at least one recent case, even without such a transition). If the NHC does indeed wait until there's no flooding threat before issuing its last advisory, there would be no HPC advisories afterwards. It would be more prudent to wait until the HPC states in an advisory that the storm has lost all tropical characteristics - or stops issuing advisories on it - before removing it from the active list here on Wikipedia. B.Wind 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NHC merely waits until a tropical cyclone has dropped to TD strength, and is expected to remain inland, before handing it over to HPC. Thegreatdr 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not always. There have been occasions in which a tropical cyclone was still TS strength when the NHC handed it over to the HPC. 147.70.242.40

That was resolved after Claudette (2003). The policy was clarified after that incident. Thegreatdr 06:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually happened with Noel, the NHC handed it off as Noel was a Cat 1 hurricane that was beginning its transition. 66.217.49.208 15:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. IMHO, a storm should not be dismissed as dissipated simply because it is extratropical. When it is extratropical, it is still dangerous, because now the storm can intensify over both land and cold water. If a storm becomes extratropical while still a hurricane, it can strengthen even more. You should not dismiss an extratropical storm that was once tropical, especially if it was a hurricane when it became extratropical. Most non-tropical storms do not reach hurricane strength very easily, so the post-tropical storm needs special attention. What, so you're just going to list in the article that the storm is gone and done with, even though it is still strong and going to threaten as many as several million people? Are you going to wait until the TCR, which could be as far as several weeks or even a month after the storm has long gone, and possibly already killed people and done lots of damage, before doing any minor updates? I realise that usually storm strengths are not included if it reached maximum strength while extratropical, otherwise you'd have listed Andrea as a hurricane and Noel as still intensifying. Now, I have seen Wikipedia issuing updates about storms as current while the storm is given advisories by the HPC. So, why not the CHC? I see that if the NHC and CHC are both issuing advisories, you almost invaribly use NHC as the sole source of potentially reliable info. Why is this? Is this US-centered systematic bias? I see that occasionally, you might list a little hint of information from the CHC long after the storm has expired. Now, in the case of Noel, the NHC is not issuing advisories, and I'm not sure whether or not the HPC is or not. Now, the CHC is still constantly issuing advisories for Noel. It issues advisories for all tropical and formerly tropical storms that are still low pressure and considered dangerous and still have a clear circulation, for storms in, near, or approaching Canadian territory. Why is it that, particularily when a storm is dangerous, you list detailed current information, and when a storm is starting its extratropical transition, and the NHC has stopped issuing advisories, and the CHC is still issuing advisories, you forget about the storm altogether? Now, around a million people in the Canadian Maritimes are preparing for the storm, stocking up on batteries, food, and supplies, in case the power goes out. The Weather Network, for example, closely monitors all tropical systems, whether tropical or post-tropical, whether it is treatening the Carribean or the United States or Canada. Meanwhile, if a hurricane is extratropical and approaching Canadian territory, Wikipedia throws out that information and prevents it from entering current information altogether. Why is this? Isn't wiki supposed to be a global project? Now, I'd think that more Canadians are aware of Wikipedia then either the NHC or the CHC. They may have seen the banner that tells them that information might not be present, and where to look for further and more quickly updated info and advisories on the storm. This seems to be only true if the storm is monitored by the NHC, and also sometimes if it's monitored by the HPC and within American territory. So, why is it that, if it's not being issued by NHC and not within American territory or not affecting it severely, you forget about it altogether? Is this even fair? Is the CHC not a reliable source, even when the NHC becomes less reliable when it stops issuing advisories? Where are the policies that state, even if it's dangerous, that an extratropical storm deserves no attention when it is not being issued advisories by either the NHC or HPC? Why doesn't the CHC matter? Even some major non-tropical or extratropical systems get an article, sometimes while it's active. I saw that tropical depression Ten got an article fairly quickly, but why? Previously, a depression like this, which caused minimal damage and no reported deths, would have been dismissed altogether. Now, it seems that the system is getting an article just because it did some damage and put down a small tornado in the United States. If this happened anywhere else, most likely it wouldn't have gotten an article unless it caused deaths and severe damage. What makes a storm in the United States any more notable than anywhere else? I see that extratorpical or pre-tropical and post-tropical systems sometimes do get information updated. However, I see this is rarely updated while current, even if there is a place to get current information from that should be deemed as reliable, and information seems to be added most quickly if the storm hit the United States. I see that Florence and Issac did get the information updated after they hit Canada, even while extratropical. This, however, did not get quickly updated until days, even weeks, after the storm has already passed. Why not current? There are advisories, there are news reports online that talk about the damage, there are reliable sources to get the info from while the system is current, or has not yet completely dissipated yet. Usually you would wait for a TCR before adding any more info. Isn't wiki supposed to be fast, to be updated quickly? Why can't you update it with advisories from the CHC, which is in no way any more fake than the NHC, and then add any extra info from the TCR reports after they've been issued? This way, we would get the information updated faster, get more people aware, and hopefully get more people reading the actual NHC/HPC/CHC advisories that are actually being issued currently. Is it jsut that United States sources are more important and reliable than sources form other countries, even if the sources from other countries have more information, and more currentness? Wouldn't it be better if we could get the info updated faster, even if it is not TCR? Wouldn't it be better if we had more current information? Who made the rules that state that you can only update info from the NHC, and end the current tone of the storm if the NHC no longer issues advisores, if the storm has become extratropical, if the storm is still dangerous? Who decided that the CHC is to be ignored if there is no other source of info for current advisories? Who decided that extratropical storms are not active, anyway? Of course you don't have to draw in the extratropical storm tracks until the TCR, but that's not what I'm asking. Extratropical storms are still dangerous, and should be given at least some attention if it is approaching inhabited land, not deemed dissipated without updates until detailed noew reports or TCR comes in. Thank you. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is that this a page for tropical cyclones. That is why extratropical cyclones aren't included in dates, and that is why they are considered dissipated when NHC issues their final advisory. That is also why we use HPC (since they are tropical depressions still) but not CHC (since they are extratropical). It doesn't have to do with US bias (TD 10 got an article because it was forecasted to become a fairly significant tropical cyclone hitting New Orleans). It has to do with our scope, and our scope is for tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no bias involved. If it's not a (sub)tropical cyclone, it isn't active. The only way it can be active once becoming extratropical is if it somehow becomes (sub)tropical again. --Coredesat 16:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(responding to Hurricanehink) Your explanation is US-centric, and your "justification" shows it, particularly in light of Noel. The NHC hands off a transitioning Cat 1 Noel and bails out - its discussion, mirrored by the discussion by the CHC, even stated that Noel would be retaining tropical characteristics as Noel approached the Maritimes. Keep in mind that the NHC never mentioned when Noel ceased to be a tropical cyclone - that it was beginning the transition. It wasn't until the afternoon of November 4 when the CHC observed that Noel was finally extratropical (something that the NHC never stated) when it entered Labrador[3]. Ignoring this observation from an official, reliable source in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the NHC is irresponsible. Noel was tropical until the last CHC advisory, not earlier. 66.217.33.129 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it wasn't. "Post-tropical" is not "tropical", and the CHC is not the official tropical cyclone RSMC in the Atlantic basin. The NHC did not "hand off" Noel to the CHC - it does not issue advisories on anything that is not tropical or subtropical, and if it's becoming extratropical, it is or will soon be no longer tropical. The CHC did not state that Noel was tropical; it issued its local bulletins because Noel was a developing extratropical storm that originated from a tropical cyclone. Also, the NHC did state that Noel was becoming extratropical in its last public advisory. You should not level accusations against other editors - assume good faith. --Coredesat 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, Coredesat, but I fail to see any accusations in the post just prior to yours (I didn't read the very lengthy one further up, however). If you were responding to the post by 66.217.33.129, please show me the accusation to which you were referring. If it's the term "US centric" that's lacking in good faith in your eyes (I, however, disagree), then perhaps there might have been an overreaction on your part as well? WP:AGF applies to all of us, as does WP:RS, which sets up a key question (since WP:RS is a content guideline) - is the CHC a reliable source under Wikipedia rules? Regarding the last CHC advisory, please re-read it as it explains why it's the last one for Noel. 147.70.242.40 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagre, the NHC [does put extratropical dates http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072006_Gordon.pdf] in its data regardless if it no longer issue advisories on it operationally. Also to hinks comment that "this a page for tropical cyclones", i dissagree this page is for storms that orginate as tropical cyclones or subtropical cyclones. And thus i suggest putting the disspating dates for a storm as a whole (as I always suggest that its more appropate that disspataion is well the storm dissapates period or is absorbed by another system) as it more accurate and does not violate WP:BURO. Any one oppose to my suggestion? Storm05 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we get this page locked? We have some crazy vandals who think it's funny to say that Melissa wreaked havoc upon the eastern U.S. and I'm sure that as the hurricane season continues, we'll get plenty more vandalism.Collegebookworm 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is getting reverted quickly for the moment and the page is getting hit by relatively few vandals. I'm watching the page and will semi-protect it if it continues. If things heat up, also feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to editing, so if you say it's manageable, I'll trust you.Collegebookworm 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just my opinion; another admin may protect it. Semi-protection would block anons and new (less than 4 day old) accounts from editing. I'd prefer not to go that route if warnings/blocks will work, which they seem to be doing for now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is on my watch list, and a lot of other people's watch lists. Acts of vandalism won't survive for long. It doesn't seem to be a big problem at the moment. DOSGuy 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism levels on this page are low. There is no need to protect, IMO. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Disturbances

I was wondering whether it would be worth including a small area on the tropical season page for tropical disturbances. I realise that having a permanent thing would not be a good idea because of the little notability these systems have. However as a short term thing i think it would add to the value of an article. I assume this is something that has been discussed before but i couldnt find anything on it. Seddon69 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Wikia is for. We also keep track of invests on the top of the talk page. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

then wouldnt it be a good idea to have a link on the page or somewhere noticable, for people who arnt members of wikipedia and the Tropical cyclones project and arnt gonna have a clue where to look.Seddon69 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a link at the top of the page, below the table of contents. Since tropical disturbances are not tropical cyclones, they are not part of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and thus they are unrelated to the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that most of the info on the Wikia is open to discussion (it is a forum), and nothing should be interpreted as encyclopedic in any way. IPchanges^{the box} 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

that didnt make ne sense to me i apologise. I didnt quite get what you were trying to say?Seddon69 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information there is not reliable; most of it is stuff you would not include on Wikipedia. IPchanges^{the box} 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a late response from me, but we do have "Other storms" sections for disturbances that were recognized as tropical or subtropical cyclones by other agencies while not being recognized by the NHC (such as the HPC). See the 1992 AHS page for a good example of one. However, that hasn't happened this year. Cyclone1(01:03-14-11-2007)

TD Ten TCR

[4] ---CWY2190^TC 22:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid TCR

[5] Good kitty 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

15 Oct CSU Forecast

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/ does not show a forecast for 15 October. Was there an anouncement somewhere else? And/Or is it inappropriate to have a forecast listed for 15th October from CSU in the predictions table? crandles 10:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Created [6] It is the sole contribution of 71.29.75.148 [7] crandles 10:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Chantal & Lorenzo TCRs

[8] & [9] Good kitty 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Melissa TCR

[10] Good kitty 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerry TCR

[11] Seddon69 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Noel Sandbox

Yea, it's in progress. I'll publish it shortly after it gets more updated. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that Noel is inland over Cuba...

... did anybody catch when it had its second landfall - and where? 147.70.242.40 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle TCR

[12] Good kitty 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"September had the lowest storm activity since 1977, despite tying for the most storms in the month"

This seems like a contradiction. Is there a clarification for this so that it's a bit less puzzling? 147.70.242.40 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed it. It used to say "September had a record tying 8 storms but the strengths and durations of the storms were low." I've restored that. -- RattleMan 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

After I wrote that "but the strengths and durations of the storms were low", I realised that Felix was a September storm and I expected it to be quickly changed - so much for my expectations LOL. crandles 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, the mention of the tie under Melissa has a cite needed tag, can somebody take care of it? Circeus 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-Tropical Noel

OK, it isn't a hurricane, but it is still going on as a significant weather event that people, even if they aren't Yankees are worried about. Why the total pull of all current info? I've added back the current info on Noel with links to the Canadian Hurricane Centre site to the Noel article. If post-tropical Noel doesn't belong here and the Hurricane Noel article where does it go? Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurricanehink asked me about this earlier, an article on ex-Noel's effects would probably be a good idea. I'm not sure if he's working on one, though. As for the pull of current info, the current info gets pulled since there are no official RSMC tropical cyclone warnings on the systems. This particular article only deals with tropical cyclones; once they're extratropical, they're out of its scope as far as current info is concerned, which is why a separate article might be a good idea. --Coredesat 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For reference, since the CHC seems not to keep its statements for good: http://www.webcitation.org/5T82XVqTU --213.155.231.26 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Core, but when did we decide that? If the RSMC is not following it, but there is an official prediction center calling it a storm with forecasted or occurring impacts on land, it is a current storm. It is outside the RSMC scope of responsibility, but it hasn't vanished. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've been saying. We've rushed to declare storms inactive as soon as the NHC issues its final advisory, but Noel still exists and is doing damage right now. There could even still be fatalities attributed to this storm. Noel isn't tropical any more, but that doesn't mean the storm no longer exists. Winds gusted to Category 3 in Wreckhouse, Newfoundland and Labrador, several days after the final advisory. DOSGuy 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential retirement candidates

While the season is not over yet, perhaps we should discuss what names will likely be retired. I would probably say that Dean, Felix, and Noel will be retired. Erin has a slight chance of retirement. All other names will probably be used again in 2013. What are your thoughts on this? ANDROS¹³³⁷ 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we won't be putting potential retirement candidates in the article, unless maybe a specific news source mentions them, all discussion on this might want to be put here.---CWY2190^TC 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is actually already a topic on that in the linked Wikia. -- IPchanges^{the box} 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to think they will be retired...I'd say Dean and Felix probably (but not certainly) will be, and Noel is a toss-up. Erin and Humberto have a slight chance but is unlikely. Since there are no obvious candidates, until a proven case is made by one or more countries, I'd leave (2007) on all the names. CrazyC83 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to say anything because I don't think it's worth speculating right now, but I don't think that Noel is remotely a toss up. It killed 148 people. From now on, whenever anyone talks about Noel, they'll be referring to Noel 2007. DOSGuy 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

After Gordon, we can never say for sure that a name will be retired. --Golbez 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Dean and Felix will be most likely retired. There is a chance Erin, Humberto, Lorenzo, and Noel will be retired. Pilover819 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Declaring storms inactive

I just want to go on record that I think it was a mistake to declare Lorenzo inactive and remove the "current status" window without posting Advisory 14 for at least a few hours. I previously posted my objection to this policy at Talk:2007_Pacific_hurricane_season#Declaring_storms_inactive. The NHC posted an advisory because the storm was still active, and was wreaking havoc and endangering lives. Apparently our policy is to never display the final advisory for any storm, and I think that's wrong. The advisory was issued because it was intended to be read and heeded. I think we should remove storms from the "active" list when the NHC does. DOSGuy 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I was the one who removed it, and it hadn't actually said "dissipating" or "remnant low" so it was still a TD at 4 pm. You have a good point, although that should be up for debate. The current storm and warning mentions remain until the direct effects are over, even if the storm has dissipated (although except for storms like Katrina with long-lasting flood effects, that is usually over within a couple days). CrazyC83 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for opening the floor to debate, and my frustration was never aimed at you personally. I never appreciated the power of tropical cyclones until Katrina. Now that I understand them better, this is one of my pet projects and I just want to keep everyone informed. DOSGuy 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Lorenzo is no longer a tropical cyclone, it should not be considered one in the pages. Thus, it should be inactive, though having the warning template until the NHC takes it off might not be a bad idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that as soon as the NHC issues an advisory that says that it's going to be the final advisory, we don't bother to post the advisory, we just change the template and indicate that the storm is inactive. The advisory isn't just telling everyone that the storm is no longer a cyclone; it has location, wind speed, movement, anything that someone affected by the storm needs to know about. I'm just saying that I think an advisory is issued for a reason, and it makes sense to update the current information to reflect that advisory until the information in it is no longer current. If the storm is still important enough to issue an advisory about, it must be noteworthy enough to update in the article. How we actually do that may be debatable, but I don't see what the big rush is to remove the current information. An advisory that issued only a few minutes ago, or even a few hours ago, is still timely. I'm probably not qualified to add anything more to the discussion than this, so I'll leave it up to others to decide. DOSGuy 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, having the warning information would become outdated by 6 hours after the final advisory. Additionally, the coordinates and information would be for something open-ended, without any updates going to happen. I guess it's a preference thing, but for something that will not be updated (unless another advisory is actually issued) I don't think it should be put in, given that the storm is effectively done at that point. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Repeating what I've just posted on Talk:2007 Pacific hurricane season) While it's not as important with Pacific cyclones as it is with Atlantic ones, on more than one occasion the NHC simply "cuts its losses" and hands it off to the HPC while the storm is starting a transition (and in at least one recent case, even without such a transition). If the NHC does indeed wait until there's no flooding threat before issuing its last advisory, there would be no HPC advisories afterwards. It would be more prudent to wait until the HPC states in an advisory that the storm has lost all tropical characteristics - or stops issuing advisories on it - before removing it from the active list here on Wikipedia. B.Wind 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NHC merely waits until a tropical cyclone has dropped to TD strength, and is expected to remain inland, before handing it over to HPC. Thegreatdr 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not always. There have been occasions in which a tropical cyclone was still TS strength when the NHC handed it over to the HPC. 147.70.242.40

That was resolved after Claudette (2003). The policy was clarified after that incident. Thegreatdr 06:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually happened with Noel, the NHC handed it off as Noel was a Cat 1 hurricane that was beginning its transition. 66.217.49.208 15:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. IMHO, a storm should not be dismissed as dissipated simply because it is extratropical. When it is extratropical, it is still dangerous, because now the storm can intensify over both land and cold water. If a storm becomes extratropical while still a hurricane, it can strengthen even more. You should not dismiss an extratropical storm that was once tropical, especially if it was a hurricane when it became extratropical. Most non-tropical storms do not reach hurricane strength very easily, so the post-tropical storm needs special attention. What, so you're just going to list in the article that the storm is gone and done with, even though it is still strong and going to threaten as many as several million people? Are you going to wait until the TCR, which could be as far as several weeks or even a month after the storm has long gone, and possibly already killed people and done lots of damage, before doing any minor updates? I realise that usually storm strengths are not included if it reached maximum strength while extratropical, otherwise you'd have listed Andrea as a hurricane and Noel as still intensifying. Now, I have seen Wikipedia issuing updates about storms as current while the storm is given advisories by the HPC. So, why not the CHC? I see that if the NHC and CHC are both issuing advisories, you almost invaribly use NHC as the sole source of potentially reliable info. Why is this? Is this US-centered systematic bias? I see that occasionally, you might list a little hint of information from the CHC long after the storm has expired. Now, in the case of Noel, the NHC is not issuing advisories, and I'm not sure whether or not the HPC is or not. Now, the CHC is still constantly issuing advisories for Noel. It issues advisories for all tropical and formerly tropical storms that are still low pressure and considered dangerous and still have a clear circulation, for storms in, near, or approaching Canadian territory. Why is it that, particularily when a storm is dangerous, you list detailed current information, and when a storm is starting its extratropical transition, and the NHC has stopped issuing advisories, and the CHC is still issuing advisories, you forget about the storm altogether? Now, around a million people in the Canadian Maritimes are preparing for the storm, stocking up on batteries, food, and supplies, in case the power goes out. The Weather Network, for example, closely monitors all tropical systems, whether tropical or post-tropical, whether it is treatening the Carribean or the United States or Canada. Meanwhile, if a hurricane is extratropical and approaching Canadian territory, Wikipedia throws out that information and prevents it from entering current information altogether. Why is this? Isn't wiki supposed to be a global project? Now, I'd think that more Canadians are aware of Wikipedia then either the NHC or the CHC. They may have seen the banner that tells them that information might not be present, and where to look for further and more quickly updated info and advisories on the storm. This seems to be only true if the storm is monitored by the NHC, and also sometimes if it's monitored by the HPC and within American territory. So, why is it that, if it's not being issued by NHC and not within American territory or not affecting it severely, you forget about it altogether? Is this even fair? Is the CHC not a reliable source, even when the NHC becomes less reliable when it stops issuing advisories? Where are the policies that state, even if it's dangerous, that an extratropical storm deserves no attention when it is not being issued advisories by either the NHC or HPC? Why doesn't the CHC matter? Even some major non-tropical or extratropical systems get an article, sometimes while it's active. I saw that tropical depression Ten got an article fairly quickly, but why? Previously, a depression like this, which caused minimal damage and no reported deths, would have been dismissed altogether. Now, it seems that the system is getting an article just because it did some damage and put down a small tornado in the United States. If this happened anywhere else, most likely it wouldn't have gotten an article unless it caused deaths and severe damage. What makes a storm in the United States any more notable than anywhere else? I see that extratorpical or pre-tropical and post-tropical systems sometimes do get information updated. However, I see this is rarely updated while current, even if there is a place to get current information from that should be deemed as reliable, and information seems to be added most quickly if the storm hit the United States. I see that Florence and Issac did get the information updated after they hit Canada, even while extratropical. This, however, did not get quickly updated until days, even weeks, after the storm has already passed. Why not current? There are advisories, there are news reports online that talk about the damage, there are reliable sources to get the info from while the system is current, or has not yet completely dissipated yet. Usually you would wait for a TCR before adding any more info. Isn't wiki supposed to be fast, to be updated quickly? Why can't you update it with advisories from the CHC, which is in no way any more fake than the NHC, and then add any extra info from the TCR reports after they've been issued? This way, we would get the information updated faster, get more people aware, and hopefully get more people reading the actual NHC/HPC/CHC advisories that are actually being issued currently. Is it jsut that United States sources are more important and reliable than sources form other countries, even if the sources from other countries have more information, and more currentness? Wouldn't it be better if we could get the info updated faster, even if it is not TCR? Wouldn't it be better if we had more current information? Who made the rules that state that you can only update info from the NHC, and end the current tone of the storm if the NHC no longer issues advisores, if the storm has become extratropical, if the storm is still dangerous? Who decided that the CHC is to be ignored if there is no other source of info for current advisories? Who decided that extratropical storms are not active, anyway? Of course you don't have to draw in the extratropical storm tracks until the TCR, but that's not what I'm asking. Extratropical storms are still dangerous, and should be given at least some attention if it is approaching inhabited land, not deemed dissipated without updates until detailed noew reports or TCR comes in. Thank you. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is that this a page for tropical cyclones. That is why extratropical cyclones aren't included in dates, and that is why they are considered dissipated when NHC issues their final advisory. That is also why we use HPC (since they are tropical depressions still) but not CHC (since they are extratropical). It doesn't have to do with US bias (TD 10 got an article because it was forecasted to become a fairly significant tropical cyclone hitting New Orleans). It has to do with our scope, and our scope is for tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no bias involved. If it's not a (sub)tropical cyclone, it isn't active. The only way it can be active once becoming extratropical is if it somehow becomes (sub)tropical again. --Coredesat 16:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(responding to Hurricanehink) Your explanation is US-centric, and your "justification" shows it, particularly in light of Noel. The NHC hands off a transitioning Cat 1 Noel and bails out - its discussion, mirrored by the discussion by the CHC, even stated that Noel would be retaining tropical characteristics as Noel approached the Maritimes. Keep in mind that the NHC never mentioned when Noel ceased to be a tropical cyclone - that it was beginning the transition. It wasn't until the afternoon of November 4 when the CHC observed that Noel was finally extratropical (something that the NHC never stated) when it entered Labrador[13]. Ignoring this observation from an official, reliable source in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the NHC is irresponsible. Noel was tropical until the last CHC advisory, not earlier. 66.217.33.129 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it wasn't. "Post-tropical" is not "tropical", and the CHC is not the official tropical cyclone RSMC in the Atlantic basin. The NHC did not "hand off" Noel to the CHC - it does not issue advisories on anything that is not tropical or subtropical, and if it's becoming extratropical, it is or will soon be no longer tropical. The CHC did not state that Noel was tropical; it issued its local bulletins because Noel was a developing extratropical storm that originated from a tropical cyclone. Also, the NHC did state that Noel was becoming extratropical in its last public advisory. You should not level accusations against other editors - assume good faith. --Coredesat 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, Coredesat, but I fail to see any accusations in the post just prior to yours (I didn't read the very lengthy one further up, however). If you were responding to the post by 66.217.33.129, please show me the accusation to which you were referring. If it's the term "US centric" that's lacking in good faith in your eyes (I, however, disagree), then perhaps there might have been an overreaction on your part as well? WP:AGF applies to all of us, as does WP:RS, which sets up a key question (since WP:RS is a content guideline) - is the CHC a reliable source under Wikipedia rules? Regarding the last CHC advisory, please re-read it as it explains why it's the last one for Noel. 147.70.242.40 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagre, the NHC [does put extratropical dates http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL072006_Gordon.pdf] in its data regardless if it no longer issue advisories on it operationally. Also to hinks comment that "this a page for tropical cyclones", i dissagree this page is for storms that orginate as tropical cyclones or subtropical cyclones. And thus i suggest putting the disspating dates for a storm as a whole (as I always suggest that its more appropate that disspataion is well the storm dissapates period or is absorbed by another system) as it more accurate and does not violate WP:BURO. Any one oppose to my suggestion? Storm05 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we get this page locked? We have some crazy vandals who think it's funny to say that Melissa wreaked havoc upon the eastern U.S. and I'm sure that as the hurricane season continues, we'll get plenty more vandalism.Collegebookworm 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is getting reverted quickly for the moment and the page is getting hit by relatively few vandals. I'm watching the page and will semi-protect it if it continues. If things heat up, also feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to editing, so if you say it's manageable, I'll trust you.Collegebookworm 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just my opinion; another admin may protect it. Semi-protection would block anons and new (less than 4 day old) accounts from editing. I'd prefer not to go that route if warnings/blocks will work, which they seem to be doing for now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is on my watch list, and a lot of other people's watch lists. Acts of vandalism won't survive for long. It doesn't seem to be a big problem at the moment. DOSGuy 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism levels on this page are low. There is no need to protect, IMO. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Disturbances

I was wondering whether it would be worth including a small area on the tropical season page for tropical disturbances. I realise that having a permanent thing would not be a good idea because of the little notability these systems have. However as a short term thing i think it would add to the value of an article. I assume this is something that has been discussed before but i couldnt find anything on it. Seddon69 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Wikia is for. We also keep track of invests on the top of the talk page. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

then wouldnt it be a good idea to have a link on the page or somewhere noticable, for people who arnt members of wikipedia and the Tropical cyclones project and arnt gonna have a clue where to look.Seddon69 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a link at the top of the page, below the table of contents. Since tropical disturbances are not tropical cyclones, they are not part of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and thus they are unrelated to the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that most of the info on the Wikia is open to discussion (it is a forum), and nothing should be interpreted as encyclopedic in any way. IPchanges^{the box} 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

that didnt make ne sense to me i apologise. I didnt quite get what you were trying to say?Seddon69 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information there is not reliable; most of it is stuff you would not include on Wikipedia. IPchanges^{the box} 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a late response from me, but we do have "Other storms" sections for disturbances that were recognized as tropical or subtropical cyclones by other agencies while not being recognized by the NHC (such as the HPC). See the 1992 AHS page for a good example of one. However, that hasn't happened this year. Cyclone1(01:03-14-11-2007)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a season summary for anything higher than B-Class. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)