Talk:2012 Atlantic hurricane season

First Tropical Storm Pre-Season? What?
I am coming out of inactivity only to ask the question what, "Alberto is also the first tropical storm ever to form in either the Atlantic or Pacific basins prior to the official start date of the hurricane season." means. I saw it in the forecast discussion, but it can't be accurate we have a list that contradicts the statement. (List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes) - Marcusmax ( speak ) 21:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its supposed to be the first time the EPAC and Atlantic had a pre-season storm. Someone got confused. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Due to Alberto, I made the article current class, which is what I'd imagine we keep it at through November.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok this is a better clarification. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we be careful here guys, 1992 had a pre season Atlantic subtropical storm + 2 pre season eastern pacific tropical storms pre season, in NOAAs AoR.Jason Rees (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was the Atlantic April subtropical storm, Ekeka, and Hali in 1992. 68.113.150.172 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where this project gets in trouble. Since we don't subdivide the basins the way NHC does, their statement doesn't coincide with the way wikipedia reports it.  I'll add more detail to help explain it.  Um, why did the project decide that again?  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per HURDAT and Landesa. See the 2010 PHS talk page. AFAIK, it is split because of Hawaii. Besides, the CPHC AOR has too few storms for separate season article. YE Pacific  Hurricane  03:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a basin doesn't have enough storms per season, one could always lump 5-10 years into one article. The 2010 PHS talk page didn't exactly enlighten me as to the why, other than "that's how HURDAT does it."  It sidestepped the RSMC issue.  HURDAT won't be the official NHC storm database in 2013, so what would be the argument then?  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ill post the entire argument for the 2010 PHS talk page

The primary basis for a "yes" vote is

Consistency:
 * 1) It is how HURDAT is done
 * 2) Avoiding redundancy (most CPAC storms come from the EPAC)
 * 3) The WMO does not call it a separate basin
 * 4) NOAA backs it up not being a separate basin.

Also, on the lumping 5-10 years thing, imagine an article from 1990-1995. It would have 20+ storms, while others ie. 1975-1980 would have a few storms. In all, I think it is too late to make such a change, it would require too much splitting, confusion, and quite a hassle. YE Pacific  Hurricane  17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Well, there is unisys. YE Pacific  Hurricane  22:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An article with 20+ storms becomes as long as a West Pac article. Out of curiosity, where does the NOAA line come from?  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The NOAA source comes from Landsea. YE Pacific  Hurricane  17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see NCDC supports this as well. So once HURDAT goes away, there will still be the WMO and NOAA issues, which I've seen repeated in journal articles.  As it is, NHC submits the data from hurricane forecasts through ATCF for both the NHC and HFO/CPHC areas, so it is as if the CPHC is a TCWC, rather than an RSMC.  As long as the status quo is maintained, we are going to have to be very careful in regards to wording, because as NHC recently showed us, they keep track of records on the northeast Pacific east of 140W longitude.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, what is happening to HURDAT? YE Pacific  Hurricane  18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, it is simply being phased out as the official hurricane archive, but it is possible that if public demand were strong enough they would need to continue producing it. The ATCF database will be what's official starting next year, which is the source of HURDAT information anyway.  The data within a couple of the ATCF files I've viewed for Irene seems rather chaotic, since forecasts are lumped in with other data within individual storm files.  There is some international hurricane database standard that NHC may have to conform to, agreed upon several years ago at the WMO, which won't resemble HURDAT.  It sounds more comprehensive, with more columns for different data types, than the extended best track database (EBTD) is currently.  It was touched upon in a recent global TC e-mail exchange concerning what additional information should be best-tracked (quality-controlled) other than what's currently QC'ed within HURDAT and the EBTD.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have to continue relying on solely on data from NOAA agencies, it is my understanding that similar lists to HURDAT exist within some of the top meteorology programs within the United States. If any of these were PD, could we augment NHC data with private firm data? I know this is somewhat of a side thought here, but something to think about. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We could look at introducing an Other Systems section, but the problem there is what type of system do you add in and leave out. I would suggest that any the NMHSS report to the WMO hurricane committee would be added but other than that i dunno.Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget my earlier thought, the more I think about it uniformity is probably needed. Additional data would add make things more complicated. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we need an other storms section? What storms could you include, invests? YE Pacific  Hurricane  22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Marcus -The other 5 non NHC basins use at least two forecast centres some more. @ YE - Wannabe TC's such as the one Enviorment Canada talked about in Mid August or weak tropical depressions that do not have enough data to justify their own section.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Las time I checked, every TD has enough for it's own section, so your second reaosn is a non-issue. IMO, Enviroment Canada systems/very notable invests belong in the seasonal summary section. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  23:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a problem though because Environment Canada does not have regional jurisdiction, only the NHC does in the North Atlantic. This goes back to my point from earlier, should we rely solely on NHC/NOAA reported data or do other organizations influence these articles as well? This is probably an issue that would be better to discuss on the project talk page. - <font style="color:#007474">Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Main Article needed
Does anyone else here agree that Alberto needs its own article? Alberto was a pre-season system that affected the east coast. It needs some sort main article. And once Beryl makes landfall in Florida, it will also need one. We need to make a main article for these systems that affected something or broke a record. STO12 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Alberto was really too notable. It didn't affect the coast that much and it didn't make landfall. On the other hand Beryl will need an article as it looks like it will make landfall on the US. So I say that Beryl will need an article but Alberto doesn't really warrant one. Curtis23 talk to me 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop debating on whether an article should be made. Be bold and do it yourself. Thank you. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline graph modifications
Ahem... Someone's been changing the storm duration/category graph so it kind of shows the category twice, once in the color, and once after the storm name. I think this looks ugly, and, more importantly, if there's already a legend at the bottom, seriously, what's the point? I just want people's input on the situation, so we can either change it back or leave it the way it is. Thanks, Nikkywikky321 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The addition of the category after the storm name is redundant and crowds the graph once we get into any sort of significant cyclone activity. I'd vote for removing them.TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Timelines are expected to be formatted this way, or else they fail ACCESS. Or so I've been told by Featured List Candidate directors. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS requires this. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is people who are colour blind or use screen readers can not see what category a system is if we dont include the category after the name. It is also important to note that all images have to accessible to all and for timelines the best way to do this is by adding in the categories after the name.Jason Rees (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS also advocates common sense and allows for occasional exceptions. Since all of the information about the category of a system is already readily available outside of the timeline graph, I believe it is unnecessary to add the category in the text of the graph.  I believe that the timeline should be an exception to the rule, just as the storm track images are an exception to the rule.  Also, I've started a discussion about this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which is probably a better place to discuss the issue than here, since this deals with more than just this season. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The track images are not an exception to the rule, they have to have alt text added to them. I also do not think just because we have the intensities else where in the article we should be allowing our readers with colour blindness or whatever to suffer as they still have to wade through the tiemline.Jason Rees (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anywhere that has text that says what the strength of the hurricane was at each point on the track map. WP:ACCESS states "Articles that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information...."  But the timeline is not hte only method used to convey the important information of the storm's strength, just like the track map isn't. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But the readers do not have to look at the track map if they are using a screen reader or whatever (They just see the Alt Text) but they do have to look at the timeline which means that it needs to be accessible to all, which is why we have the cat after the name. I also note that within the actual timelines they have to have it, despite the fact that the color is not the only method used to convey important information.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But if a user was colorblind and not using a screen reader, wouldn't the maps violate WP:ACCES? Sorry... I'm beginning to think I may not be interpreting the policy 100% correctly - I feel like I'm getting something wrong here. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't of thought so as you can avoid looking at the maps or look at the alt text, where as you can not avoid looking at the timeline.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But both the timeline and the track maps are in the main article. If you had a colorblind reader looking at the page, how could he avoid the map but not the timeline.  (And sorry - I'm not trying to argue - just trying to figure out the policy.  If you'd like to take this to my talk page, feel free). Inks.LWC (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The track map is 1/10 the size of the timeline and located within the infobox, while the timeline is generally located within the seasonal summary section. I also note that if you clicked on the trackmap and blew it up, you would find a template key.Jason Rees (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The new format is inacceptable whatever WP:ACCESS requires or not. However I don't see the point concerning WP:ACCESS whit that: Still the reader does not know what the bars depict. For users with accessibility issues most graphics are wothless and timelines without dates for beginning and ending are even more worthless. So I just don't see the point. Besides, the bars are identified with the storm names, and all available data are in the article. (BTW: If one would make a screenshot and upload the time graph as PNG that discussion never would've comen up). Another point which is inacceptable is the width of those graphs which now is 1000 px. Most users do not have monitors which allow them to see the graph w/o horizontal scrolling. I guess 800 px is the maximum for what is senseful but let's not forget on users of netbooks (which tend to have more and more smaller resolutions) or mobile devices. Let's revert that change. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addition: The color blinds can deal better with the graph when we change to a darker background. For that we use canvas value:gray(0.88) in the German WP's hurricane seasons articles. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Matthiasb the current format of the timelines is acceptable, and has been passed through FLC. If the reader was using a screen reader and we had the symbols after the name then they would know that the bars decipher the colours. I also believe that they see the dates when they use a screen reader which is why we have been told during numerous FLCs to get the intensity noted at the end of the names. As for changing the width of the timeline back to 800px, i believe that 1000px would work on most screens as i checked it out on a screen smaller than my own and it worked perfectly w/o horizontal scrolling. So no lets not revert that change. As for changing the timeline to a PNG screenshot, it would still require the symbols as they would be easily added in.Jason Rees (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that alt text is no longer required at the WP:FAC. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  14:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may no longer be required for FAC, but it is still good to get it in.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reader was using a screen reader and we had the symbols after the name then they would know that the bars seems to be a wrong assumption because of, AFAIK, screen readers won't speak out timelines, they're skipped or, if I am informed correctly, the screen reader will tell that there's an image with the name 76d92492164ec3f8448bfb8c8fe6deef.png which is stored at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/76d92492164ec3f8448bfb8c8fe6deef.png. What's worse the image is named very cryptical (because it is generated on Wikimedia's servers) and afterwards transmitted to the user's browser with no "alt" at all (and within the article there even isn't any possibility to define any). :/ So whoever at the FAC nomination processes was telling you something about accessibility that user does not have a clue about how timelines in Wikipedia are working (not that I know very much on this, I'm only a layman here, but at least I've figured out this). The only possibility to access a timeline graph with a screen reader is using the the editing modus. There you already have the designation (e.g. TD, C1) and therefore any further (TD) oder (C1) just is causing redundancy within the specific line.
 * What about my proposal to use a slightly darker canvas which would improve contrast of the graph?
 * Concerning the 1000px, if it would work for me w/o scrolling I would not request that. With the 800px it has at this moment its right edge exactly marks the right edge of the browser window (minus the scrolling bar of the browser that is). In the 2011 PTS article it's the blue bar of the latest TD I can see, its description and all to the right of it I can't see w/o scrolling, in that special case that does not matter at all, however ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Jason, in regards to the track map legend - that doesn't differentiate between the storm categories in anything other than color. If we're applying the same principle, we should either have "C1" "C2" etc. next to each point on the map or use different shapes for each of the categories. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We all understand that there are color blind readers out there, and that to show the intensity of the storm is color coded on the timeline. Remember! The timeline isn't the only thing on the article that shows the storm's intensity! There are other things on these articles that will show it, such as the section of storms and other info that is displayed on these pages. Also, color blind readers also have a screen panel that helps them see color while on the internet, so these symbols are unneeded on these articles. STO12 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I myself am a colour blind photographer and I don't think it's necessary to have the storm code suffixes applied to the timeline. It makes it look messy and first-glance complicated. The purpose of the timeline is to give a quick overview of the season. Full date and storm classification information is available elsewhere on the page. JKMMX (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What to show on track maps?
I notice that at present the tracks for each storm include the pre-tropical but not the post-tropical points, while the season summary omits the pre-tropical as well. I believe in previous years we have plotted every point the NRL can offer us (maybe even the HPC as well), so should that practice continue? Surely at least the summary ought to match the details?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think operationally we should only go with when it was a tropical cyclone. Storms that have a long precursor end up becoming misleading, particularly if their tropical track is much shorter than their full NRL track. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with show say like 5 or so points prior to development. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you quantify that? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking was for the seasonal maps to avoid the pre-storm tracks to reduce the amount of clutter (I initially forgot it with both EPac and ATL) and keep it on the storm maps since it's what's available in the prelim best track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cyclonebiskit, but I was thinking that the season summary map should only show when the storm was tropical, (eg, not when it was pre- or post-tropical, or a wave.) but the details should be shown in the storm's exclusive section. Nikkywikky321 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Should there an exception for storms like Katia that have significant effects after the go post tropical? TornadoLGS (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cyclonebiskit, and I also agree with what Nikkywikky321 said about the season summary map. And, in response to TornadoLGS's question, I do not think that there should be exceptions for the post tropical portions of the storms because it wouldn't make sense if you were to put some of the tracks but not the others. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talking about Tropical Depressions, and linking to splinter articles
Just looking over the articles for last year's hurricane season and the year before, something struck me: The previous years seem to have more detail on systems as soon as they become Tropical Depressions instead fo waiting until they achieve Storm status, and also every storm in the 2010 season ended up with a separate article about it. What's the policy on that this year? I seem to remember last year more notability was introduced in terms of how much news a storm must make before it deserves its own separate article, but for example wouldn't that mean Chris should have its own page considering it's the earliest storm in years to achieve hurricane status before July / August?

What's the plan for this year regarding these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.218.242 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that's happened this year is that every storm has been initialized as a named system, there hasn't been a numbered tropical depression thus far. As for the older season articles, there has been more time to expand on the information and the post-storm reports, which provide concrete information on the origins of the cyclones, are available and have been implemented into the sections. Since wikipedia is a volunteer effort, people who write up these sections, like myself, don't always have the time to do so. In regards to the storm articles, we try to limit them to storms that have a notable impact on land or are meteorologically significant (an article for Chris is therefore a possibility). Hope that clears things up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it does indeed, I had actually gone looking for a list of numbered depressions over the last few days (assuming Debby would have been Tropical Depression Four) and was quite surprised not to find one, just assumed I was looking in the wrong places! Is there any particular reason they're not numbering them this year or is it just because they've developed so quickly that there was never time to? 86.43.218.242 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A storm is classed as a tropical cyclone once it becomes organized enough. In many cases when it reaches the necessary level of organization its winds are not yet tropical storm force, so it is classified as a depression. However it sometimes happens, as has happened with the first four storms this year, that a disturbance already has tropical storm force winds by the time it organizes into a tropical cyclone, so it skips being a depression. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the storms are numbered internally by the National Hurricane Center. Even though Debby was not a TD, it is still treated as 04L on websites like NRL Monterey. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NHC is starting to more strictly adhere to their tropical cyclone definition, which itself has evolved over the decades, though it has been relatively similar since 1989. The "well-defined circulation" portion of their TC criteria led to Debby's delay to TC status.  The warm-core/deep convection portion of their criteria caused a delay in Beryl's naming.  The "synoptic scale" definition now allows them to wait 24 hours hours before declaring anything, which caused delays with Chris and Florence.  Very few of these systems meet the synoptic scale size criteria, though they do match its temporal criteria, most of the time.  After the fact, they will go back and add that day of information to the beginning of the TC track, indicating that it became a tropical or subtropical cyclone sooner than they acknowledged publicly in real-time.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ernesto article
Before anyone starts complaining there isn't an Ernesto article, I'm working on a sandbox here. Anyone is welcome to help. I don't think it needs an article quite yet, but if consensus proves otherwise, we can move it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Does NCHurricane2009's blog on WeatherUnderground qualify as a source?
NCHurricane2009's "Hurricane Season Birdseye Discussion" series appears in Google News results for the hurricane season. He issues his own forecasts based on analysis of satellites etc. It's an interesting blog as he has several times predicted development of tropical waves before the NHC has listed them as likely areas of development. For instance, the current Tropical Wave Invest 99L has only just been acknowledged on the NHC's forecast, but the WeatherUnderground blog noted it several days ago. The blog is here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/NCHurricane2009/comment.html?entrynum=154

Is this citeable as a source for forecasting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.105.161 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just because it shows up in Google News does not make it reliable. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this one tends to be very reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.105.161 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Using blogs is a potential problem for wikipedia articles which is best avoided. If he/she were a former director of an RSMC, I'd say go for it.  In this case, it's not, so I'd say no.  The quality of the weather map currently on the blog is poor, at best.  See the Wikipedia article on the topic at SOURCES. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ACE
There was a recent discussion on the 2012 Pacific hurricane season talk page about ACE. As a result of that, the ACE section from the season article was removed. Standards should probably be uniform in the Atlantic too. I don't want to be the one who removes it, but either we need a source, or they should be removed. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If standards must be uniform, we should go over and restore it on 2012 Pacific hurricane season. It's a factual trivial calculation from data from Reliable Sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if it's trivial, is it even needed? And is there even a good way to source it? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not trivial, but it is not based on good sources either. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Igpay Atinlay otay Englishhay ishay rivialtray ootay, but that doesn't mean it's the best format for communicating information. It's simply "The ACE is calculated by summing the squares of the estimated maximum sustained velocity of every active tropical storm (wind speed 35 knots or higher), at six-hour intervals.", and as long as we have those velocities, the calculation of the ACE is a trivial mathematical calculation that nonetheless can't be done in most people's heads.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it can't be done in most ppl's heads, then it is OR. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  23:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a template in extensive use that automatically converts from metric to imperial or vice versa; if you get that deleted, then I might believe you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable source for ACE data in the NCDC, so that should not be an issue. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite Tito. They only use preliminary data. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any thoughts? I still hold that it should be removed, since it's not used in any other basin for each individual storm. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season for an ongoing discussion that could have ramifications for this article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Storm section order
Can we agree here that the storms should be in L number order, not alphabetical name order, so 07L.Helene comes before 08L.Gordon? I'm sure that's how it's been done before (e.g. Jova & Irwin in 2011 Pacific hurricane season), but I don't want to start a revert war without reinforcements.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * err Date order is what i prefer ie (07L before 08L, Susan before Katrina and Ron).Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;but date of Tropical Depression formation, not Tropical Storm formation and naming--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has always been done in order of number (see Ingrid and Humberto in 2007). So, yes, date of TD formation is what counts here, even if it looks odd! TDI19 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reason not to have the timeline above the list of storms?
Seems to me that it would make more sense to have the "Timeline of Events" section above the "storms" section, seeing as the storm section is likely to keep growing whereas the timeline section is something people will probably just look at quickly.

Any particular reason not to switch them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.91.172 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. Just delete the timeline of events section. It's horribly redundant. We can move the graph above Alberto's section. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like have the graph, a link to "Main article: timeline of 2012 hurricane season" and then list the storms? MAkes enough sense, any precedent for this? 86.44.91.172 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's how it's done on most articles. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that only 1 link is required, which is taken care of in the related articles box.Jason Rees (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved it for now into the storms section. There's a gap in the graph, between the X axis and each dividing line for months, if you look at the bottom of the graph there's a small break in each dividing line near the bottom. Not entirely sure how to fix this, it was already there when I moved the table 86.44.91.172 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better to include it in the Season Summary section when somebody adds that section. United States Man (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to Alphabetical?
With Gordon having died, is there any reason it shouldn't be back into its proper alphabetical place?Naraht (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it formed after Helene did, so Gordon should be after Helene. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So the names in the order that they reached TS, but in the article in the order they reached TD, right?Naraht (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, the ordering is based off the tropical depression number, but the naming is in order of when it reached TS status. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. (I'm tired and want to go to bed, but was wondering who reordered the alphabet, or am I just too tired?) Bob305 (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Isaac sandbox
WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical Storm Isaac (2012) - so people don't lose their shit. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ACE Question
Question- is there any reason the ACE values displayed on the main page for active storms have not been matching the value given on the ACE calculation page recently? TDI19 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I've seen, they do match. Sometimes the updates take a while, but regardless you can check them out summary by summary and fix them, if needed. Keep in mind it's a provisional number anyway, and will remain so until the final 2012 NHC report. Skycycle (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! TDI19 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline graph – Hurricane Michael
The graph shows Hurricane Michael as a Cat. 2 Hurricane; isn't it only a Cat. 1 right now? –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. As of the last update Micheal is a category 2 storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the 1:00 AM AST advisory. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess now it's a Cat. 3. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of recent events
Instead of reverting everyone, please tell me why the timeline of recent events section exists? YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  16:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there is no reason for that section. It is fine where it is now. United States Man (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Timeline of recent events section is expected to outline the activity that has occurred in the basin over the past 15 days and includes the timeline image. This has been the format for several years, and should not be changed just because a handful of 13-year olds got together and said they would remove it without any prior consent to the rest of the project. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're sure in a good place to be calling us 13-year-olds. You are 15 and probably don't know anymore about it than we do. That comment had nothing to do with this matter and was way out of line. United States Man (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TAWX, no offense to what I am going to say and I truly hate to harp back at you, I am going to say this in the nicest way possible that I know of. However, we have to face the truth here comment was extremely uncivil. I suggest you apologize. FYI, I am not 13, I do not know how old USM is. For the record, IIRC there has been an admin who got promoted around the time of his 14th birthday, so 13 year olds can definitely edit WP well. I hate to say this, but it's incidents like this that makes me not want to edit WP. No offense, but I feel there is a large amount of disrepsect in this project for ppl that have been spent time working outside of the Atlantic or working on articles as a whole and not siting around here and focusing on the current season. Again, no pun intended. As for USM's reply, to be perfectly honest, it also borders incivility in one place as I'd argue ("probably don't know anymore about it than we do.") could sounds offensive to TAWX.


 * Getting back on topic, I have a question. Did you actually read what I posted on your talk page, "See WP:DRNC. For this reason, I reverted your edit per WP:BRD. I opened a discussion on the talk page on this matter. YE Pacific Hurricane 9:34 am, Today (UTC−7)" And if you read the link, (WP:DRNC), it is a lesser-know essay about not to revert for the reason of "no consensus". As for your comment "This has been the format for several years" while is correct, keep in mind WP:CCC here; it states "Consensus can change, and matters discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not considered before. On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again. As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal." As for your statement "The Timeline of recent events section is expected to outline the activity that has occurred in the basin over the past 15 days" is correct, but what's is the point in this when it can easily be displayed as a timeline not to mention that fact that it has been argued by  and  that timelines shouldn't exist (which I happen to agree with for inactive seasons only, hence, if trends continue, ill merge to 2012 PHS timeline). Keep in the that WP is not a news source. In particular, it says that "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."


 * Again, I am sorry for my rant above, but the time has come to face the truth. I really hope nobody takes offense to this though. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I think TropicalAnalystwx13's comment of accusing other editors as immature 13-year-olds is definitely way out of line, I do agree with his point though: Since when did we decide to no longer keep timeline events of the last 15 days? I do not recall such a discussion. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was simply bold in removing it :P YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  21:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was the one who removed it. But it was on YE's suggestion that I did so. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yellow Evan while yes it is useful for the reader to see the latest information reguarding the storms that is what we have the articles for. The only arguement I see from TropicalAnalystwx13 reguarding this is that its always been this way so there... WP:Consensus can change - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is meant for the season as a whole. The timeline of recent events section is for just that, the recent events. Consensus can change, but there is no consensus here, and therefore it does not need to be removed until one is reached. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To further add to this comment, saying that it shouldn't be there just because it can be covered in its article is a bit silly. That's like saying we shouldn't have Storm sections because the information can be covered in their articles. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about a brief summary of recent events yes that is helpful but there is no need for so little to go on the main page, if you look at Hurricane Chris for example: "Early on June 22 Chris began transitioning into a post-tropical cyclone as it interacted with a larger extratropical low to its south. The final advisory on Chris was issued at on June 22 after completing its post-tropical transition, as it was absorbed by a larger non-tropical low" Okay so that bit right there has a date on when the final advisory on Chris was issued so why include the info again down below? This is just like including the same information in the article about the storm that is already in the article here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic, why state the maximum sustained winds in a storm's infobox if it is going to be stated again in the Season Effects chart? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OK... let's try to avoid an edit war over a minor issue. Perhaps discussing this at the project talk page would be a better idea than just here, since this will ultimately impact more than just this article. Until then, let's leave the article the way it is now. I quite honestly don't care one way or another whether the timeline of recent events is there or not, but going back and forth with reverts isn't helpful. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Should "Template Convert" be used for unit conversions?
Should we use the template for unit conversions on this page? For example: kt to mph and kph, mi to km, mb to inHg, etc. I really pondering this because I can't seem to get the same values as the NHC. For example, I tried to convert 160 miles to 255 km (NHC conversion), but the template gives me approximately (rounded) 260, and the real value is precisely 257.49504. I think the problem is that doesn't seem to want to round down by fives. Any thoughts? 06:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus is just to manually type the NHC numbers. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that is probably best, but where was the consensus? 06:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remember. I just remember saying something like this somewhere before and being told that.  Plus, there's some implied consensus in that all of the articles do it that way.  Perhaps when  's round-by-5s function is fully functional, we can revisit the issue though.  (And I'd suggest that when it is fully functional, we do revisit the issue.) Inks.LWC (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good. No need to find it – I trust you :) I think, for now, it would be a good idea to just use whatever NHC has. 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The old consensus was to use a different template which rounded winds to the nearest 5 mph. The convert template works fine with measured wind gusts, measured winds, and measured pressures (though a .0 is needed for hPa to inHg).  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential re-generation of Tropical Storm Nadine
The remnant of TS Nadine is now listed on the NHC outlook at having the potential for regeneration. Based on previous years, when a remnant low regenerates into a tropical cyclone, does it get a new number and subsequently a new name, or will it again be Tropical Storm Nadine? Will we be adding information to the existing Nadine section or creating an entirely new one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.4.84 (talk • contribs)
 * It'll be a continuation of the previous Nadine section. The same thing happened with Helene this year. That dissipated and later reformed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to hurricane current infobox
Anybody want to comment on the changes being proposed for this template? –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible unnecessary trivia in Chris and Michael's sections
In Hurricane Chris's section, it says it was the third earliest third tropical storm on record. And in Hurricane Michael's section, it says it's the third earliest seventh hurricane on record. I do not know if these facts violate a Wikipedia guideline, but they seem like trivia. However, I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove them. 68.113.150.172 (talk) (Andrew444) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a bigger question to ask. Are they sourced? YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not see that. I guess the trivia can stay. 68.113.150.172 (talk) (Andrew444)11:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, even if they are sourced, I believe he brings up a good point - is that trivial to include? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems too trivial to me. Everything is the somethingest something since somewhen. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have one more trivial thing I found, but in Oscar's section. It says NHC forecaster Eric Blake noted that Oscar would "not win the award for best picture on satellite images." I think that's not worded properly, or is unnecessary for the article. Should it be changed to something else? Rye998 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That also seems a bit weird to include. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Something's wrong?
Three people now in the last 24 hours have accidentally removed most of the content on this page. Is this something wrong with Wikipedia?

Please see here, here, and here.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can figure is that the page is saving really slowly, so people are double clicking and overwriting themselves. I've noticed the entire site has been slow the last day or so. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Add two more: and . There has to be a way to stop this from happening. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has happened a total of nine times for this page. I think that TheAustinMan has already reported it though. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy
Yes, I know right now this is a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation, but I think it needs to be made clear now, since a large number of models create a hyper-Nor'Easter out of Sandy (or at least some of the remnants), as low as 928 mbar in one run of the ECMWF. In the event such happens (not a guarantee, but very possible), should it be treated as part of Sandy, or a separate storm? That would have major bearings on article creations and locations - whether to build a second article or keep it as one. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bit CRYSTALBALL, in the sense that it's unclear how the media will handle it. I'm leaning toward keeping it as one, as the Weather Channel is already warning about Nor'Sandy potential. Of course, it needs an article first. Anyone is welcome to start a project sandbox on it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tropical Storm Sandy (2012) –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hink, Don't even mention the weather channel, see if the NWS says anything about it. Remember, TWC is naming (or trying to name) winter storms. United States Man (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding the Greeks?
I know it is somewhat WP:CRYSTALBALL, but should a sentence be added to the Storm Names section about the use of the Greek Letters? And if not now, when? (when Valerie is first used, when William is first used, or when Alpha is first used)? Note, I don't suggest everything to Omega be listed...Naraht (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The Greek Alphabet option is a contingency for unusual circumstances.n I don't think there's any need to add them unless we do have storms after William. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is possible that Tony will be the last storm this year, although not likely. United States Man (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Minutes in time of last advisory
I think that minutes should only be included when the time is not on the hour, and it has always been this way.

Please see some revisions:


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=519638169 earlier today]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=517852403 roughly 10 days ago]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=514562766 a month ago]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=494886002 at the beginning of the season]

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right... even I edited it that way for Oscar. Either my memory died during the 5 days of cyclone inactivity or law school is finally starting to get to me. :P Inks.LWC (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel that way – I was just trying to see what everybody thought about it (instead of edit warring, I took it to the talk page!). –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No - I was in the wrong (and I still haven't figured out why I thought that we included minutes). Next time (hopefully there isn't a next time), feel free to point it out to me on my talk page if it's clear I'm contradicting myself. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Precision
In the Statistics table, total damage is given at ~2,579.2 million dollars. However, Hurricane Issac's statistic is "could top 2 billion dollars" according to the source, which could easily be off by 100 million. I therefore recommend rounding the total to the nearest $100,000,000, so as not to be misleadingly precise. ypnypn (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a more accurate damage figure for Isaac now, but if there is I'd like to see it. If not, an approxamation to nearest 100 million would be more accurate than to the nearest 10 or 1 million, I agree. Rye998 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongest storm listing
Why do we go by minimum pressure (Sandy) rather than maximum wind speed (Michael)? (Don't get me wrong, I think pressure makes more sense, but I can't pinpoint why.) 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The most basic explanation is that pressure influences the winds so it's the main component of the storm that influences its intensity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Damage totals
There is a new link stating total losses from Sandy could range from 30-50 billion. Overall damage is at least 20 billion from earlier estimates, but until total damage is confirmed, I think we should just put >20 billion for now. Saying over 50 billion might be misleading for the time being. Anyone agree? Rye998 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence needs rewriting
It's bad grammar, a run-on sentence, comma before an "and," a "but" in the same sentence, "hurricane" mentioned too many times: The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season is a very active Atlantic hurricane season in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation that has so far seen 19 tropical storms, 10 hurricanes, and 1 major hurricane, exceeding the predicted maximum number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but so far has not exceeded the predicted number of major hurricanes.

May I suggest: The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season has been very active compared to other years. So far there have been 19 tropical storms and 10 hurricanes -- one of which was a major (Category 3) hurricane, which exceeds the predicted amount of storm activity other than major hurricanes. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of info on Florence
HERE's the info that was removed about Florence, looks like someone rewrote it:
 * Late on August 1, a vigorous tropical wave emerged off the coast of Africa. The wave developed a mid-level spin, and on August 3, the National Hurricane Center began to monitor the wave. The wave slowly organized, and on August 4, the storm became Tropical Depression Six.  The next day it strengthened into Tropical Storm Florence.  Environmental conditions were favorable at first, which allowed Florence to strengthen into a moderate tropical storm. As the system progressed west-northwest, it encountered drier and more stable air, which caused Florence to weaken. These unfavorable conditions finally took its toll on Florence when it weakened early on August 6 into a tropical depression, with the system almost void of thunderstorms and a vortex spinning in its center. Later that day on August 6, Florence weakened into a post-tropical cyclone and the final advisory was issued by the National Hurricane Center. After becoming post-tropical, the remains of Florence were still monitored by the National Hurricane Center as they continued to track west-northwestward while producing intermittent convection, although it never re-developed.

Here's the rewrite:
 * A tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic from the west coast of Africa early on August 2 – initially accompanied with disorganized convection. Early on August 3, a well-defined low pressure area developed along the axis of the wave. Later that day at 1800 UTC, Tropical Depression Six formed while situated about 150 mi south-southwest of the Cape Verde. After an increase in deep convection and slight strengthening, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Florence early on August 4. Due to initially favorable environmental conditions, the storm continued to intensify. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:12george1
Is there consensus for such a thorough-going rewrite and reduction of this article? I've no objection if there is, but it all looks a little drastic not to be discussed at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His edits arent too drastic imo, as all it seems is he is removing some of the trivia and updating/rewriting parts with the post season reports.Jason Rees (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Alberto Article
I finished an Alberto article, I just can't change the redirect to the 2012 season. Psoro (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whats the point of having an article for Alberto? At the end of the day the storm did virtually nothing and the seasonal article already covers it adequately.Jason Rees (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the article that you created is essentially the same as what's in the seasonal article. Also, just to save you some time, an article has already been made for Debby. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea I saw that just haven't gotten to edit the user page yet. It's fine if you don't need the Alberto article I forgot to check this season's talk page before I completed it and just thought that I would post here if anyone was interested in making it into an article. Psoro (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/10/19/nl-rafael-trepassey-storm-surge-1019.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4pp8lLBiclk2e5XY8wb4RMOrCbg?docId=9b9549fbed1b489aabf91c837dc6e9e2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/10/19/nl-rafael-trepassey-storm-surge-1019.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2008/dec2008/dec2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416133407/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/10/19/nl-rafael-trepassey-storm-surge-1019.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/31/2826435/storm-season-off-to-a-fast-start.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4pp8lLBiclk2e5XY8wb4RMOrCbg?docId=9b9549fbed1b489aabf91c837dc6e9e2
 * Added tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-16/americas/world_americas_weather-rafael_1_bermuda-forecasters-bermuda-weather-service-tropical-storm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/10/19/nl-rafael-trepassey-storm-surge-1019.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623020336/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/costliesttable.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/costliesttable.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. 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://archive.is/20130122094947/http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/05/28/1214116/intensas-lluvias-dejan-dos-muertos.html to http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/05/28/1214116/intensas-lluvias-dejan-dos-muertos.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130122094947/http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/05/28/1214116/intensas-lluvias-dejan-dos-muertos.html to http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2012/05/28/1214116/intensas-lluvias-dejan-dos-muertos.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Helene
Hello, sir is it ok if I can make a main page on Tropical Storm Helene this my article Tropical Storm Helene 2012. Thank you very much.


 * First of all, please sign after your comment. Second, I don't think the storm is notable enough to be created as a main article. Third, please stop your hoax article, like Hurricane Isaac 2021. It is a clear hoax. Thank you. Severe  storm  28  02:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)