Talk:2014 Atlantic hurricane season

North America Unassessed Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Specialized archives: Tracking Data \\ ACE calcs

Other basin talkpages (2014): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere

Who to include in Pre-season forecasts

Apparently there has been some limited debate over which private firms should be included in the section about Pre-season forecasts, with at least one user suggesting that we should include the WeatherBELL forecast. So, let's discuss and figure out what we want to do. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection to adding WeatherBell is that the organization is not well-known and it's more of a commercial business as opposed to a professional organization such as Colorado State University, Tropical Storm Risk, etc. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a proper discussion about this and kick it out of the ball park once and for all. What makes a private firm or University worthy of being included in our seasonal forecast section. Id personally suggest a verification report issued or forecasts for another basins.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WSI is a huge commercial business, so that is a silly argument to omit WeatherBELL but include WSI based on that.69.115.65.61 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the problem that while TWC is a well-known player, WeatherBELL is a relative unknown as far as I can tell. At least I'd never heard of it before this discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know of one of their weathermen, Joe Bastardi. With that said, I don't think they're widely known. I don't think the fact that it is kinda a commercial business is relevant. As for using forecast from universities only. should we use NC State's one. I'd say no as until this morning, I never knew it existed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of their researchers is Dr. Maue who has an extensive background in TC climatology it appears: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ryan-maue/2a/9a/b36 69.115.65.61 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a factor the consider (and I actually respect Ryan Maue), but how widely known is JB/WB's forecast? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though no one could ever answer that question specifically (not only for WB but for anyone). JB in and of himself has been an institution in hurricane forecasts for decades, so while WB has only been around for more than a few years, between their wxmaps and JB theres a footprint. 166.137.88.152 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How often do you see WB mention on the news? This is what our friend google yields. Interrupt it as you wish. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WB come up second in an image search, even before TWC.38.105.174.189 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is behind CSU, but it's only an image search. I would not take too much stock into it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard of WeatherBELL before this (although I was a meteorology undergrad student, so I may be an outlier there), and I don't think that being a commercial firm has any impact on the issue. TAW, do you have any support for the statement that WeatherBELL is not well known, and those who support its forecast's inclusion, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WBs weather maps are out there all over the place. IMO great hi-res ECMWF maps. 198.228.200.44 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I'm not a fan of WB or the ECMWF, but let's keep the discussion on-topic. Thanks. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, think all they were doing was answering the question whether WB is well known or not. On that note, WSI/TWC has never been known for their seasonal forecasts but for their in-season coverage, so if WB is not included, neither should WSI. 38.105.174.189 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calm, just don't wanna get carried away. I was replying to his second part, FTR. As for WSI/TWC, it's a TV channel, so it's widely known. Now, is their forecast widely known? That's a good question. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question with any source used is whether it's reliable or otherwise suitable for Wikipedia reguardless of popularity. Not whether it's a TV channel.Dmm1169 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability isn't a factor here IMO. None of these predictions are 100% accurate, so by that regard, we should not be including any of them. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think how widely known some company is in a certain language should influence our decision on what to include as it is widely subjective. As i said the other day what should influence our decision is things like do they issue verification reports or forecasts for other basins - this is what indicates that a source is reliable in my opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a factor. RS's really isn't a verb big player here. I'd simple keep it to university or government agency forecasts. As for limiting others basins, that'd mean we drop the most known example (CSU). Doing what I said which means good bye TWC, WB, and TSR, but keeps NCSU, CSU, and the CPC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale behind only university and government agency forecasts? That seems like an arbitrary pick to me. Note that I'm disagreeing with you--I really don't have an opinion here; I'm just curious what your rationale is. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YE rered what i suggested please, i am not saying just include ones that issue for other basins. As i also suggested that we use ones that issue verification reports which would mean CSU is covered but not WB, TWC/WSI, or accuweather. Also NMHSS/RSMCs should automatically be covered inc Cuba.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did say "for other basins", so I replied to that part. I did not talk about verification reports, because honestly, I don't know who issues them (well, you posted it above, so I guess I know now). My rationale is that it limits personal/private firms, but includes all the "well-known" hurricane forecasts (mainly CPC and CSU, granted NCSU is still left in there). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active storms/91L

If this storm should become Arthur... because of its proximity to land and the impact even a small storm going up the eastern sea-board would have in the media. Would it be within reason to create Arthur its own page and condense it into the main article later in the season, if it turns out to be a minimal storm? Is there a protocol for this or do all active storms receive their own article? CircuitChild (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's heading south, so it's not going up the eastern seaboard. At this point there's nothing to say about it. Let's reserve the decision about whether or not it gets its own article until it becomes at least a tropical depression and threatens land. DOSGuy (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CircutChild, we do the opposite generally. We wait for it to appear likely that it will outgrow it's season section before creating a page. Regarding path, it is going south now, but the Euro has it going up the East Coast later in the week. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is still too early to tell what this storm will do, at 4:30pm (EST) the storm was investigated by air and found it to be not quite at tropical depression level yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a holiday week, therefore, there will be lots of travel and millions of Americans impacted by this storm regardless of where it goes. Even though it is traveling southwest, it is predicted to travel up the coastline. In my opinion, if an active storm is imminently threatening any part of the US it should have its own page while the storm is current and then be disintegrated into the main page after it dissipates or does not meet the threshold to continue have its own article. However, I don't believe a depression is ever worthy of having it's own page. Not that I would consult Wikipedia for up-to-date information but someone might and you never know... We might save a life by giving Arthur its own page while the storm is active. Cheers! CircuitChild (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should pose the question @Yellow Evan, what does a storm need to have to outgrow the seasonal section?CircuitChild (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Generally, needs at least 2 (maybe even 3 paragraphs) to justify it's own article. It's also worth pointing out that we are not a news source, so I think it'd premature to make one at this time. As for depressions, they are article worthy if they do a lot of damage generally speaking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Invest 91L is now Tropical Depression One (or 01L). In most forecasts (includes mine), it is to go north or north northeast. I believe we will create the article if damages and casualties will be reported soon. Also if we are really going to create the article, even it is One or Arthur, we are going to create it if it finally dissipates from extratropical. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:03, 1 July, 2014 (UTC)

I could easily write a four-paragraph article about this system right now. I live in Orlando and Arthur is sure to cause some beach erosion due to its prolonged presence off our coastline and as I said before... have a significant impact on travel and coastal areas throughout the week. Our local meteorologists have forcast it to become a hurricane as it nears Cape Hatteras, NC.CircuitChild (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]