This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
I recently noticed some citations in their article are titled “Tropical Storm GRACE” or any variant of that name (for example: Tropical Depression GRACE). When citing NHC issued advisories, please always use the 4th line of the article as the title (for example, let’s say that you are citing the first advisory of of Hurricane Grace. The proper title of that is “Potential Tropical Cyclone Seven Advisory Number 1”.). This rule is also used for discussions, forecast discussions, and wind speed Probabilities. Thank you. Kayree kh (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to correct that before. I think it's because some people are autofilling parameters from the URL, which often gives incorrect results. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was the second image.
Both images are when the storm was 125 mph, at 00:00z, on best track. That itself is not a compelling argument. If anything, image 2 is closer to peak intensity because it was at 02z, while FleurDeOdile's inage was at 04z. Also, his image background is purposely tilted to the side (yet the overlay of the storm IR is not) to cover up the area of missing data and is less realistic. The image is visibly stretched out /distorted on the left as well. Hurricaneboy23(page) * (talk)22:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image 2 I'm not at all a fan of using IR images, but image 2 is the best quality for a peak intensity image. GOES IR is pretty low resolution and the 3rd image is blown up well past it's useful resolution. Image 2 is as well but not to the same extent. Supportstorm (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@AwesomeHurricaneBoss and Hurricaneboy23: Please stop reverting each other and just present your reasonings, as it is really pathetic that you are reverting over images taken an hour and a half apart. This is especially true when you stop and consider that most tropical cyclones that have ever existed do not have the luxury of an image to pick from every 5 minutes yet alone every hour.Jason Rees (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I support it because, 1, it looks better and 2, it was at peak intensity. Grace was at 100kts in image 1, 105 in image 2, 110 in image 3 and again 105 in image 4. According to my best track data, Grace could have been in between 90 and 100 knots at the time of image 4. 🌀AwesomeHurricaneBoss🌀20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok@AwesomeHurricaneBoss: but why does it matter so much that image 4 is supposedly 5 knots weaker than image 3, that you want to edit war over it rather than present your reasonings on the talk page. After all I seriously doubt that Wikipedia wants to have images at the exact moment a hurricane peaks which is what you seem to want.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AwesomeHurricaneBoss: Im not asking you to agree with me, I am just asking you to explain your thinking over this image and why 5 knots matters so much that you are going to edit war to use it as the main image of the article. Especially when you stop and look at the bigger picture and see that the 5 knots or the way it looks doesnt really matter when most tropical cyclones have a limited amount of pictures.Jason Rees (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for Image 4 since it was a bit more intense at that time, at least going by the advisories. I'm not sure where to access BT data for this year. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image 3 or 4 – Either one of these are okay, as they are both decent images (for IR image edits) and close to the peak; that makes them the most representative images since the storm underwent RI and peaked right before landfall. However, I have a slight preference for Image 4, because it is closer to the Category 3 peak. Seriously, though. Just please stop with the image wars. It's disruptive, and it's not even worth it. Also, please read my Op-Ed on image-warring in this newsletter, and also consult WP:WPTC/IMG, regarding TC images. Image-warring is absolutely unacceptable. Consider yourselves warned. The next time this happens, there will be consequences. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image 3 I stand by my original preference. Image 4 is poorly done with the clouds having transparency issues and strange artifacting. It's also been blown up about 4x too large compared to it's source resolution. My edit for image 3 isn't perfect either but it doesn't have the same issues as mentioned for 4. Supportstorm (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did not need to ping me here another 2 times, I got the message the first time. Since Supportstorm has improved the image, I am in support of Image 4 which is closer to peak intensity than all the images (all of them are either when grace was 115/120 mph) and is the most realistic looking. It is also consistent with the nighttime image of Hurricane Nicholas, and I like consistency. Also, @AwesomeHurricaneBoss:, I suggest you quit reverting images with little to no reasoning (you did not even give much real reasoning to why you started this discussion in rhe first place... besides that there was an edit war ongoing due to you not giving valid reasoning!!!). WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse. Hurricaneboy23(page) * (talk)14:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need to remind you that you were just as complicit in this edit war, which seems to be a ongoing trend. The next instance of either one of you being involved in another image edit war will be reported to WP:AN/3. There have been numerous warnings posted in the past for similar behavior, please correct this. Supportstorm (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The tropical cyclone report reduces the wind speed to 120mph, which means that the storm no longer ties Karl for the highest winds in the Bay of Campeche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.26.29.150 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
