Talk:Shipping Forecast/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Does anyone ever call them "weather areas"?

Minches

There was a sea area between Hebrides and Bailey, I think, called Minches. Not sure when it was discontinued (1960s probably) Any other former areas which could or should be listed? Alsager boy 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Minches was still in use, albeit only for two of the four daily bulletins, in 1983. It was invariably grouped with Hebrides, which may be why it was discontinued and absorbed into Hebrides. Jess Cully 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to have some references to this. I'd like to edit the page. Alsager boy (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sailing By

I have created a fresh article under this name - have linked to it from the Shipping Forecast article. Just wondered what would be the legal position of me uploading my recording? At present I've linked to an online file, but I have a recording of the whole thing...

The forecast is always the same number of words long???

I don't believe this! Will remove unless anybody objects. --Auximines 19:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Already done it. ;)

It is indeed the case - I will try to track down a reference. It was discussed on an episode of Feedback sometime toward the end of last year. JonoP 11:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Found it [1]. I was slightly wrong - the rule is that it has a maximum length of 350 words (Rule J seems to be the applicable rule, rather than D). JonoP 11:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am adding info on the strct formatting and maximum length back in. JonoP 11:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of Utsire

The link Utsire actually goes to Utsira with an 'a'. Is this a different Utsire/Utsira, or are there two spellings, or has the BBC just got it wrong all these years? For the record, the BBC's spelling is definitely with an 'e' (as in the article): http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/

I think this is a simple issue of the English (and German) name for the place being spelt slightly differently from the Norwegian name. 82.36.26.229 02:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the English spelling should be used on English Wikipedia, as per Munich and Rome Jooler 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the name of the place in Norway is always UtsirA, and the UtsirE spelling is used only for the shipping-forecast sea area. I have added a link to shipping forecast from Utsira. Snalwibma 21:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How the Norwegians spell it is a matter for the Norwegian wiki. If it's on the English wiki then it should be spelled the English way. You can imagine the hassle of correcting all the entries for Londres on the French wiki to London, can't you?Jatrius (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better map?

It would be nice if there were a better map for reference. The map provided is OK, but (1) It is too low a resolution (2) It doesn't show lat/lon lines (3) It is missing a few areas and (4) It doesn't indicate locations of the coastal weather stations. Something somewhat better is at [2], though it has older names and is of course not public domain. Is there anyone who has better, or who is willing to make one? Mlouns 06:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind -- did it myself. Result is in Image:ShippingZones2.JPG , now in the article. Mlouns 09:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

the introduction of Fisher in 1955, when Dogger was split in two.

That would have meant that Dogger was a very strange shape, according to the map.

--88.160.64.2 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First and last

The last broadcast of the Shipping Forecast at 0048 each day ...

The 0048 broadcast is, of course, the first Shipping Forecast of the day. -- Picapica 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Finisterre & Fitzroy

FitzRoy was named Finisterre until February 2002, when it was renamed after Robert FitzRoy to avoid confusion with Spanish area of the same name.

Not sure this is correct; the Fitzroy area touches Cape Finisterre in Spain. I believe the change was to avoid confusion with the French area of Finistère, which is in Brittany and is not contiguous with Fitzroy. JXM 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The French Finistère is not a sea area so there could be no possible confusion. The Spanish Finisterre was a sea area (it was not a reference to the cape,) albeit covering a different region to the British Finisterre so this is from where confusion arose. I have changed it back and provided links to news reports from that time confirmingh the situation. --Cherry blossom tree 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The potential for confusion arose from the fact that the sea area formerly referred to as Finisterre in the UK shipping forecast was (and is) notably more extensive than the area of the same name used then (and now) in French and Spanish forecasts. The bounds of the UK version are

• 48°27' N / 6°15' W / 41° N / 15° W

Those of the French/Spanish area are

• 45° N / 7° W / 41°50' N / 12° W

Both areas, of course, include Cape Finisterre (in NW Spain), but the problem was solved by renaming the UK Met Office's sea area to Fitzroy. --Picapica (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Globalize??

I'm confused about why the article has been tagged as not representing a "worldwide view". Granted, there is some room for general improvement, but it's not clear to me what is specifically lacking that would support a worldwide viewpoint. The piece is about a long-standing radio broadcast in the UK, which has become something of a folk tradition. Does it perhaps need to be situated more in the context of other meterological reports around the world? JXM 00:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I think that is what it means, but since nobody has ever bothered to try to edit this page to reflect a global opinion, it clearly isn't worthy of a mention. If it were so important, somebody would have edited it by now. Alex Holowczak 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Following that argument you could say that we may as well close Wikipedia since anything that hasn't already been added clearly isn't worth adding. I think the issue has arisen over a confusion whether this article refers to the Shipping Forecast as broadcast by the BBC or shipping forecasts in general. --Cherry blossom tree 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag becuase I thought the term Shipping Forecast is too generic to be about a specific BBC program. There are probably Shipping Forecasts all around the world. So my thought was that the title should specify that we're dealing with a BBC program, or, the article should be amended to describe all types of shipping forecasts around the globe (or both). __meco 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Shipping Forecast (note the capitals) is a perfectly adequate title for an article about the radio programme. There probably should be an article about maritime weather forecasting but that's a different article. --Cherry blossom tree 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "Shipping Forecast (BBC radio program)" or something similar. However, I'll remove the tag as this is not something I have strong views about. __meco 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But if this was moved then what would go at Shipping Forecast? --Cherry blossom tree 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How about renaming the article to "UK Shipping forecast" or "BBC's Radio 4 Shipping Forcast". This article discusses only the UK shipping forecast. At first, "Shipping Forecast" will become a redirect page, but it can be expanded into an article if anyone wants to talk about shipping forecasts in general, or it could even become a disambiguation page if there are articles about shipping forecasts in other countries. Ae-a 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is to be a general article about shipping forecasts it should be at maritime weather forecast or something similar, unless it can be demonstrated that "shipping forecast" is a common term in use all over the world to refer to such forecasts. As far as I'm aware, "the Shipping Forecast" (capitalized as in this article) always refers to the Met Office/BBC one. And as that is its name, it is standard Wikipedia practice not to add any qualifier unless necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. --Blisco 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The name does differ (sjöväderrapporten - the sea/maritime weather report - but the Swedish equivalent of the Shipping Forecast is very similar and has similar connotations. I think a general article with the BBC Shipping Forecast as one among several maritime weather reports would make more sense and have more general relevance. --Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.8 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Alteration to 'Broadcast format' section

I have amended the function of 'Sailing By', as the previous entry was not entirely correct Fortnum (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Medium Wave (MW)

In northern Germany, I heard BBC Radio 4 Shipping Forecast on MW 1449 kHz on 7 Dec 2009 at 00:48 UTC and 17:54 UTC. Should also MW frequencies be given, as in Marveterraporto? --Onklo (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, in that Radio 4's MW transmitters relay the LW stream and therefore also every shipping forecast (some of them do not go out on FM). This is information probably worth adding -- as soon as I can think of a tidy way of doing so! --Picapica (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Further to my last comment: According to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's Maritime Safety Information leaflet, BBC Radio 4's medium-wave transmitters carry the bulletins at 00.48 and 05.20, but not those at 12.01 and 17.54. I've some reason to doubt the accuracy of the latter part of that information, however, since the leaflet states that on Saturdays and Sundays the 17.54 bulletin is carried on LW and FM (which it is) -- but with no mention of MW at all. As far as I know, there are never more than two distinct Radio 4 broadcast streams: one for LW+MW and one for FM, so I will investigate further. --Picapica (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Coastal Stations

Why does this article on the BBC Shipping Forecast go into total irrelevances, and yet does not list or a map of "Coastal Stations"; which are as much a part of the Shipping Forecast, as the sea areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.5.243 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Click on the map to open it in its own page - the key to the map names the Coastal Stations, which are shown on the map by numbered red dots. --Kay Dekker (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The shipping forecast on other stations

Notwithstanding this article only referring to the concept of a Shipping Forecast in the UK (which I find hard to believe is the only country to have shipping forecasts, indeed there is an indication within the article that RTE broadcasts one), but what about shipping forecasts on stations other than the BBC? Did ILR ever carry them? And what about on television? There's evidence of television shipping forecasts here being shown on ITV, as this very bizarre example shows! (about 1:55 in)... -- Fursday 14:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A very good point. In fact the linked article in the Esperanto Wikipedia – here – has a very good table giving details of most if not (probably) all the radio shipping forecasts in northern Europe. One of these days I must get around to translating it into English! -- Picapica (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There are similar standing programmes, broadcasting a few times a day, in most Northern European countries that have a coastline at least, and no doubt in N and S America too, and elsewhere. The general format is roughly similar to the BBC's in Scandinavia at least, and just like in the UK; it's become a recognized and sometimes parodied part of the media environment. A general article listing these programmes in different parts of the world would be quite interesting. 83.254.159.232 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to factor in the Channel Island shipping forecast (broadcast by BBC Jersey twice daily) when you do this. 82.112.145.217 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Why has the link to the Esperanto article been removed?

The Esperanto article (here) is both on the Shipping Forecast and maritime weather services in general. --Onklo (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon Burton, 6, 7 MOVING WESTERLY IN HEAVY ROTATION. Why has this NOT been linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.132.166 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

More details explanation of examples such as "Low, Rockall, 987, deepening rapidly, expected Fair Isle 964 by 0700 tomorrow" possible? 81.96.166.19 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On the General Synopsis that would mean that there is a low pressure (987 millibars) at rockall, becoming rapidly lower (the hint is that it will be 964 millibars lower at Fair Isle tomorrow morning); a storm but not a particularly severe one. It is implied that a north-westerly wind will take it there.

Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Who issues it?

This morning on the 5.20 forecast on Radio 4 it was plain issued "by the Met Office", and not "on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency". I am wondering whether perhaps that quango has now been abolished; it may have been a simple omission of course. This may have not been the first time it was omitted from the bulletin; just the first time I noticed it.

Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The 5.20 bulletin is the only one read by a Met Office employee, rather than a properly trained BBC announcer (and it shows!), so that may be the reason for the occasional carelessness. --Picapica (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk about the introductory statement...

Information doesn't hurt. But there's a place for it. In my view going into organisational structure of the Met Office and MCA in the introductory paragraph is overkill. Those interested in whether the former is a "commercial trading fund owned by the Ministry of Defence" can find that out just by clicking on it. For everyone else, it's trivia and doesn't belong here. Another editor disagrees with me - that's 50:50 then - so let's have some input! Egg Centric 22:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You and I may be seasoned experts in the structure of the British government, but should an American (they do exist!) or an Armenian or a Malawian want to read the article, it's quite important that they realise the shipping forecast is a government project rather than merely a commercial/broadcasting one. As WP:LEDE says, an article introduction should "establish the context," and the Ministry of Defence, MCGA and DfT are an inextricable part of the context. (Incidentally, if you think that "50:50" has any relevance here, then you are utterly mistaken.) ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 07:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point re 50:50. Therefore I don't need to bother convincing you. Egg Centric 21:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you don't edit-war over this or you may be receiving yet another block. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 23:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Illustration of principle

I don't see that I have to convince you, but as I am kind and know that you're acting in good faith, I will provide a few introductory paragraphs from other random articles and how they would appear if written how you seem to want this one to be:

Oppositional defiant disorder

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a controversial diagnosis described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. People who have it may appear very stubborn and angry.

would become

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a controversial diagnosis described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM - a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association which provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) as an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. People who have it may appear very stubborn and angry.

Nuisance

Nuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, <snip>

would become

Nuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law (law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action) tort (a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty (other than a contractual duty) owed to someone else.). It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, <snip>

Jobsworth

"Jobsworth" is a British colloquial word deriving from the phrase "I can't do that, it's more than my job's worth", meaning that taking the initiative by performing an action, and perhaps in the process breaking a rule, is beyond what the person feels their job description allows. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "A person in authority (esp. a minor official) who insists on adhering to rules and regulations or bureaucratic procedures even at the expense of common sense." Jonathon Green similarly defines "jobsworth" as "a minor factotum whose only status comes from enforcing otherwise petty regulations".

would become

"Jobsworth" is a British colloquial word deriving from the phrase "I can't do that, it's more than my job's worth", meaning that taking the initiative by performing an action, and perhaps in the process breaking a rule, is beyond what the person feels their job description allows. The Oxford English Dictionary (said to be the premier dictionary of the English language by its own publisher.) defines it as "A person in authority (esp. a minor official) who insists on adhering to rules and regulations or bureaucratic procedures even at the expense of common sense." Jonathon Green similarly defines "jobsworth" as "a minor factotum whose only status comes from enforcing otherwise petty regulations".

In all the examples above we see how silly, and frankly, anti-wiki, it is to include this sort of information and swell the opening paragraph when it is all available to the interested reader with one click. I believe the version of shipping forecast that doesn't include the technicalities about the Met Office's corporate structure is more concise and per above more in line with accepted practice (no matter how many capital letters or threats you throw around) and that is why I am going to put it back. Egg Centric 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you need to wait for a consensus to form for your position. If you wish to get outside input, please start an RfC or ask for a third opinion – whatever. But continuing to edit-war is disruptive and not allowed. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and don't think your choice of articles to quote from has gone un-noticed. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you as I can see numerous others have tried and it only serves to increase their blood pressure. Find someone else to back up your position or I will assume consensus. It may not be perfect policy but you force me to take a pragmatic approach. Egg Centric 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Find someone else to back up your position or I will assume consensus. Read WP:BRD one more time, and be aware that if you revert the article again without further (outside) input here I will be making a report to the admins' noticeboard. ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 16:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I will await the input from the third opinion. I would absolutely love it if you subjected (y)our conduct to the glare of uninvolved administrators - policy cannot supersede decency Egg Centric 17:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, hello, hello! Interesting that there was chat about Americans possibly being interested. I frequently hear the SF when I fall asleep listening to the BBC over here in the New World. Truthfully, I prefer the shorter version of the introduction, as it is clear, concise, and has sufficient links to lead curious readers to the appropriate detail about the organizations involved in creating and disseminating the Shipping Forecast. Not that I didn't learn a great deal about UK govt strucuture after wondering about those funds... That term is much better than quasigovernmental, which is what we call the US Post Office. Anyway, again, I think it best to leave out the parenthetical information, or place it further along in the article.—Hiobazard (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Hiobazard. I have updated the article to reflect it. Egg Centric 20:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

References

What will happen when long wave broadcasts cease?

I came here tonight to see if there was an answer to the question above, given that (as reported here in The Guardian) Radio 4's long wave transmissions are now living on borrowed time. That article doesn't say what will happen to the shipping forecast -- whether it will go entirely online/digital, be broadcast in MW, what? If this is known, I think it could be worth including, though obviously not if there's nothing more than speculation about it. Loganberry (Talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk of them discontinuing the Long Wave shipping broadcasts back in the early 1990s and confining them to the FM channels. Presumably someone eventually enlightened them about the propagation of radio signals, that any FM broadcasts would be limited to line-of-sight ranges or a few tens of miles, and would therefore be of little use to mariners.

I think what you are referring to was plans to use 198 kHz for a proposed rolling news service (see Scud FM) during the John Birt era. This plan was ditched due to opposition and eventually ended in the then new Radio 5 becoming Five Live. -- Fursday 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The motive was for them to sell-off the Long Wave frequencies and earn a few quid for the government. Not much use however, to someone sitting in a small boat out of FM radio range in mid-atlantic. The whole idea says a lot about the sort of technical advice (or rather, the lack of it) that has held sway in UK government circles for the past 50 years or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I would doubt LW would be of much commercial value to anybody other than broadcasters due to its technical characteristics, indeed the main cost benefit of discontinuing services are based on the electricity bills and upkeep of the TX sites. In any event the future of LW is speculative at best, and the reasons for doing so even more so. I think it is best to leave this subject out of the article in lieu of any firm and conclusive references, which I have yet to come accross. -- Fursday 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My point was that of any of the current wavebands that should be retained it is the Long Wave one, as it has the most distant signal propagation, to well out into the North Atlantic. Any broadcast on FM for example, could not be received for more than around twenty miles out to sea. THAT ought to have been obvious to anyone at the BBC having any sort of technical knowledge. Unfortunately during the Birt years all the BBC's technical branches were closed down and the services 'outsourced'. Presumably the BBC didn't see fit to ask for any advice they might actually have to pay for. You may be correct about the transmitter cost being the reason, but it was/will still be a stupid decision to close down the LW shipping forecast - it's the only waveband that makes the forecast useful to mariners, because once out into the Atlantic or North Sea it is the only one they will be physically able to receive. Unless of course the Mandarins at the BBC are only interested in providing forecasts for their harbour-bound yachtsmen chummies. Not much good to you if you're a fisherman in a deep sea trawler out of Aberdeen on a rough night though.

Rather the same goes for the ASR, which Major's lot ruined in a bid to save money. For the channel area (Dover Straits) we used to have an RAF ASR Sea King based at RAF Manston up until the 1990s, until the government closed Manston down and then decided that in future helicopters would have to come all the way from Suffolk to perform rescues in the area. The fact that that more than doubled flight time means that with the sea temperatures being what they are in winter, there is very little chance of anyone surviving in the sea until a chopper arrives. I remember the night of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster when in addition to the ones from Manston we also had helicopters flying over much later from as far afield as Hampshire - but the Manston ones got there first. As an aside, back in the 70s and 80s we often used to see a bright yellow RAF Whirlwind or Wessex or later, a Sea King, flying over during the day or night. Now you never see any - not RAF, RN, or civilian. Presumably no-one gets into distress at sea in this area any more. Perhaps the government have made it illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

HMCG / MCA

From what I can tell the HMCG no longer exists as a governemnt agency, it's been folded into the MCA (Marine Costal Agency), perhaps we should update the article to use the current name? --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

HMCG is not a separate agency, but it still exists. The discussions regarding the current and future role of HMCG are available from this page on the website of the MCA (which is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency). The article for Her Majesty's Coastguard makes it clear that "HM Coastguard is a section of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency". - David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Region Names

The regions in the list link to places from which they obtain their names, but most of these are of no real use as links. See Cromarty for example. I propose removing the majority of these links. Anyone interested? The Roman Candle (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

After a week now, I'll do it. If anyone feels strongly about it then revert the edit. Thanks. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have loved to know where these terms come from, especially "Forties". Oh well.... --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Forties" is named after the Long Forties. North and South Utsire: Utsira; Cromarty: Cromarty Firth; Forth: Firth of Forth; Tyne: River Tyne; Dogger: Dogger Bank; Fisher: Fisher Bank; German Bight: German Bight; Humber: River Humber; Thames: River Thames; Dover: Strait of Dover; Wight: Isle of Wight; Portland: Isle of Portland; Plymouth: Plymouth; Biscay: Bay of Biscay; Trafalgar: Cape Trafalgar; Finisterre: Cape Finisterre; Sole: Sole Bank; Lundy: Lundy; Fastnet: Fastnet Rock; Irish Sea: Irish Sea; Shannon: River Shannon; Rockall: Rockall; Malin: Malin Head; Hebrides: Hebrides; Bailey: Bill Bailey Bank; Fair Isle: Fair Isle; Faeroes: Faroe Islands; Southeast Iceland: er, southeast Iceland. I assume "Viking" is named after the Vikings. Opera hat (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be a section in the article? Huw Powell (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Viking" may possibly be named after the oil fields of that name in the North Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

According to page 7 of The Met Office’s Fact Sheet No. 8 "Fisher" and "Viking" were named after (sand) banks within their areas. The fact sheet is already used as a reference within the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sea areas around the world?

Are all the world's oceans divided into sea areas like these, or just these around Britain? 71.226.144.42 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fisher created from Dogger?

"Later modifications include the introduction of Fisher in 1955, when Dogger was split in two."
If Dogger once included Fisher, then that would have been a very oddly shaped area. Not impossible, but I reckon something isn't right here. Bazonka (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that struck me as a bit odd, too. The words and the map tend to disagree. Huw Powell (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture - Grauniad puzzle

The Guardian's Saturday prize puzzle of August 31 2013 features the shipping report areas as a theme. Should this perhaps be added to the voluminous pop culture section? Perhaps after the prize deadline? (Ooops, I see what I did there)

It's here: [3]

All the best (and I never would have worked out "Utsire" without this article), Huw Powell (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gale warnings

The article has a section on "Gale warnings", stating "In addition, gale warnings are broadcast at other times between programmes and after news". I'm sure I haven't heard these on Radio 4 for about fifteen years. Do they still happen? GDBarry (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Met Office says they are (at least in 2008).[4] But is it still true? Could it be long wave only while there are trailers on other frequencies? In the WP article many links to the BBC seem to be dead. Thincat (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"good night gentlemen..."

I've read on several fan sites that the reader used to sign off with the words " "Good night gentlemen, and good sailing". As most of the mentions of this seem to be disgruntled ("it was better in the old days" etc.) this fact, arguably, has some cultural significance. Does anyone know when the BBC stopped using this closing line? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This was the personal and very characteristic sign-off of the late Frank Phillips, a long-standing newsreader and continuity announcer for the BBC. When he retired, many tributes were paid by mariners of all kinds, who had loved his respectful night-time greetings. No subsequent announcer has tried to emulate him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.225.26 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

370 words

There is no reference given for the statement: "The forecast, excluding the header line, has a limit of 370 words..." The ref to the Met Office website which follows this is a dead link, but nowhere on the Met Office site can I find any reference to the length of the broadcast. On a recent BBC TV programme about weather forecasting another (lower) figure was used. It seems to me that with 31 sea areas themselves taking up 37 words, that leaves a maximum of less than 11 words per area average. OK, sometimes areas are combined, but 11 is just ridiculous, and the announcement of gale warnings before the area forecasts reduces this as well. In addition, when the weather is expected to be very changeable, the forecast for each area or group of areas is going to be lengthened considerably with extra phrases beginning "later", "occasionally", "perhaps", "or" etc. (For example, as I write, the forecast for wind in Fisher is "Variable 3, becoming easterly or northeasterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 later." That's 12 words without any mention of sea state, weather or visiblity!) And to make things even worse, sometimes sea areas are split where the weather is expected to vary significantly across them (e.g. "southwest Shannon" and "northeast Shannon"). So where does this supposed 370 word limit come from? Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

The "later", "occasionally", "perhaps" and other phrases used all have precise meanings known to mariners so having a limit on the word count is not necessarily a handicap, and is actually an advantage in some weather and sea conditions in the reduced time taken in receiving a forecast and writing it down perhaps with the ship/boat pitching and rolling in rough seas.

The Shipping Forecast is actually highly specialised and is written so as to convey essential safety information in an as concise and error-resistant a manner as is possible over broadcast radio that may be affected by atmospherics and poor signal strength.

The Shipping Forecast is like it is for very well-thought-out reasons in order to help maintain safety at sea in possible circumstances where people out in unforeseen bad weather can get themselves killed, and where valuable ships and cargoes could be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shipping Forecast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070128011010/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk:80/newmedia/datafeed/uk_shipping.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/newmedia/datafeed/uk_shipping.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shipping Forecast/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.

==Assessment, August 12, 2007== This article would have easily been 'B' class, had it not been for the huge lack of sources. TheIslander 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shipping Forecast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706124312/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/guide/shipping/key.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/guide/shipping/key.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64PxXvLPc?url=http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/shipping_forecast.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/shipping_forecast.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)