Talk:Tropical Storm Alex (2022)

Sectioning the Preparations and Impact section
I think the Preparations and Impact section need to be sectioned into Cuba, Florida and Bermuda, and possibly Preparations once more information has been added. However, I am not sure how to do this. Can anyone please help? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"Draft:Tropical Depression One" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:Tropical Depression One and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drdpw (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Track
Alex's is track does not show it reaching Norway, however, it does show it reaching Norway in the Season Article. Is there a reason for this? Hurricane Su (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The season article section has not been updated to reflect the newly released TCR information. Drdpw (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up Hurricane Su (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

NHC official track vs FleurDeOdile’s track
Starting this discussion because of two good-faith reverts done by and. Earlier today, NHC published a 42-page report on Tropical Storm Alex. In that report, they gave the official NHC track, which was uploaded to Wikipedia (File:National Hurricane Center Track for Tropical Storm Alex (2022).jpg). Right after Tropical Storm Alex, occurred, made a track (Seen on File:Alex 2022 track.png) which was uploaded to this article and 2022 Atlantic hurricane season.

Should we use the official NHC track or FleurDeOdile’s track?

Discussion

 * I suggest we use FleurDeOdile’s track on the seasonal article (2022 Atlantic hurricane season), since it is in an infobox, and use the NHC track on the article (Tropical Storm Alex (2022) since it is not in an infobox and rather a “stand-alone” image in the meteorological history section. That way, both images are used somewhere on Wikipedia and that seems to be the most appropriate usage of them. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another perk to the NHC image is the legend that is already built into the image. The track made by FleurDeOdile requires the reader to go to the description of the image for the legend & when a reader downloads the image, the legend does not get downloaded. NHC has it built in, so that is one reader-side perk for the NHC track. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs consistency, so having some articles have the NHC tracks and others have FleurDeOdile's tracks would ruin said consistency. The NHC doesn't cover any other basins besides the ATL, EPAC, and CPAC, so having storms that form within these basins have these NHC tracks would be specific to only those basins. If someone wants to see the NHC tracks, they can look them up, otherwise I see no use to have them on Wikipedia. Julius008 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What says Wikipedia "needs consistency"? MOS:CONSISTENT is about the English grammar being consistent. No policy says articles need to be consistent with one another. NHC publishes tracks for all tropical systems within their jurisdiction (let's focus on the Atlantic Ocean right now) as well as a seasonal track map. If you would like consistency, then NHC maps could replace all the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season articles and track maps. NHC's map is a better map than FleurDeOdile map due to the legend and scale issue. The reader's come first when thinking about an article. Does a reader care about consistency? If I was a new reader, (FleurDeOdile map) I would enlarge the map image to actually see it. Once enlarged (aka clicking on the image), I then am forced to go to the commons and scroll down to the "Summary" section just to see the key. Alternatively, I could minimize the image (clicking the x after enlarging) and click the "[show]" button for the legend. Once again, I would have to repeat that process multiple times to differentiate between the map (which in reality is a satellite map with two colors of blue triangles and blue circles connected by a white line). Nothing in the enlarged image (where a reader can clearly see the shapes and colors) actually explain what they mean. In the NHC map on the other hand, a reader only has to enlarge the image. The legend is already part of the image, so the reader can just click and open and instantly understand the map. Based on WP:RF, changing the map to accommodate the reader should take precedent over an ideology that Wikipedia needs to be consistent (that isn't part of the policy nor essays). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that a consensus was developed to keep the track marks on blue marble map. Why should this article be any different? Please examine that discussion and consider starting a discussion somewhere else (like on WT:WikiProject Weather) to get more involved. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)