Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: The average is 11. Where are you reading that the average is 15.5? Hopefully not in our article! Plasticup T/C 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  kk thank you for clearing that up for me (Seddon69 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Felix-Ivo Sand box

message: 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)
thread_title:  Felix warning 

message: See .
Should this be included into the timeline? -bitterMan.lha 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. --CWY2190 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. These don't always result in tropical cyclones (though they do more often than not). —Verrai 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHC issued an 'Atlantic SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gabrielle Sandbox 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Works for me.  Keep it Ingrid then Humberto. ---CWY2190TC 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FWIW. 1. ---CWY2190TC 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? IPchangesthe box 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What about the Storm names section? Should we put Ingrid before Humberto there, too? DOSGuy 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I comes before H 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I dont care.. 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Tropical Storm Humberto (2007)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would say no.  But if someone really wants to make it in their userspace than fine. ---CWY2190TC 02:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: People should bear in mind the disambiguation page for the name Ingrid. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ingrid sandbox? 

message: Trackmap at commons, :Image:2007 10L 5-day track.gif --213.155.231.26 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Gone by HPC now Jason Rees 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtropical depression Ten 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jerry's ACE

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yea, feel free to publish it once there are preps or impact. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NHC said that Karen was a hurricane yesterday. So Lorenzo is not actually the fourth one. Good kitty 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. IPchangesthe box 00:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)? IPchangesthe box 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorenzo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Got to agree with Hurricanehink. - JVG 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Revert war on the button bar 

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

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

message: ---CWY2190TC 22:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TD Ten TCR 

message: Good kitty 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingrid TCR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  15 Oct CSU Forecast 

message: &  Good kitty 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chantal & Lorenzo TCRs 

message: Good kitty 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melissa TCR 

message: Seddon69 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerry TCR 

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

message: ... did anybody catch when it had its second landfall - and where? 147.70.242.40 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that Noel is inland over Cuba... 

message: Good kitty 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabrielle TCR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-Tropical Noel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.---CWY2190TC 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is actually already a topic on that in the linked Wikia. -- IPchangesthe box 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: After Gordon, we can never say for sure that a name will be retired. --Golbez 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential retirement candidates 

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

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

message: Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment