Talk:Tropical Storm Sara

Panama

Panama is located within the Central American gyre therefore the attacks of tropical storm number 19 and then the potential tropical cyclone Sara, directly affect the Panamanian nation as today, November 13 Sinaproc organizations managed by Sinaproc The disaster risk was made known, as happened in the article Hurricane Rafael (2024) a little comprehensive reading of the effects within Panama. I ask you not to delete the information on the talk page. Thanks 190.219.102.114 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick question: so what could anyone (including me) do to improve the article with the info about Panama? Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, the weather these past several days in Panama is not directly tied to Sara, which developed in a different part of the Caribbean and so does not belong in this article. If you want to consult with others regarding a draft article on Fall 2024 flooding in Panama, I would encourage you to do so. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Sara will probably not get retired, in 2025, will we rename the article?

It is common tradition to put the year before the storm name in the title of an article. Should we, in 2025, change the name of the article from Tropical Storm Sara to Tropical Storm Sara (2024)? 🍋 🍋(talk!) 04:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as it is the first tropical storm of that name without an "h" at its end, and will be the Tropical Storm Sara that comes to most folks's mind first going forward. Drdpw (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

then in 2031, if the name is used? 🍋 🍋(talk!) 12:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah, probably SillyNerdo (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ok. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 21:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's if it gets used in 2032 (which frankly is still ridiculously far away to consider), it may be 2038 or later when the name next gets used as S is so late in the alphabet. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz: I'm sure you meant to say 2030, and not 2032 (since the lists are re-used every six years). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Accidental strawman. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Drdpw, would you consider moving the List of other storms named Sara link into a hatnote? ✶Quxyz✶ 22:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, consider it  Done. Drdpw (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

not yet Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not for the next six or twelve years at least. Have y'all not seen the change with Hurricane Rafael (2012)? It's quite a long time between changes if you ask me. My piece of advice: If a name were to be used for the first time in a basin, keep the year out for the next six years at least until a much stronger, costlier, or deadlier namesake comes once the year comes that the same list is used. Prominent examples are Hurricanes Francine and Milton which were both used for the first time after Florence and Michael. Another piece of advice: Shall a name be used for the nth time while previous usage(s) of the same name was gravely insignificant enough to not have an individual article (ex. Tropical Storm Irma in 1978 compared to Hurricane Irma in 2017), keep the year out of that lattest instance. Iseriously (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All of what you've suggested is already WPTC policy. JayTee⛈️ 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The track thingy needs to be updated

Even though I'm not talking about the intensity, I am talking about the colours. If you go to the track info, it shows the old colours instead of the new ones. So will you guys fix this? 2A00:23C6:4B67:501:8CAB:69C0:8A21:2A54 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

just noticed it lol, I think someone will fix it soon prolly SillyNerdo (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Deaths

This source claims that there have been several times the amounts of death as already reported but the timeframe is sketchy. Are these related to Sara? ✶Quxyz✶ 23:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is attaching impacts from the Pacific onshore flow of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (I hope I am saying that correctly?) in Costa Rica and Panama to the invest and PTC that became Sara. I question how related these impacts are to Sara, but only have a layman's understanding of these things. Drdpw (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe myself to be decently knowledgeable through the basic college classes I have taken. ITCZ sounds about correct but it would not relate to Sara as it is pretty much just an atmospheric river. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are not related to Sara most likely, I found this which says it's caused by "severe storms" that have affected the area for the past 12 days. This was supported by the fact that the article you showed said that the deaths were in the past 2 weeks before Sara formed. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

AccuWeather Controversy

The info should be included. AccuWeather has done this several times before (one of the arguments for removal), which would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST-style arguments. Several RS meteorologists are mentioning how bad the forecast itself was, and we have several RS which used it, showing the forecast itself has notability/merits. Since there is a non-free file involved, the content should not be removed unless a clear consensus is against inclusion of anything AccuWeather from the article entirely. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support seems significant, based on the RS coverage.104.246.112.81 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I completely agree and I think that this mistake on Accuweather's part is big enough to be included Shmego2 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

SupportAccuweather needs to stop overreacting with these forcasts and damage estimates Joseph Ca98 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform and should only report based on what reliable, secondary sources say. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Switching to Oppose - Dug a little bit deeper into this and realized there isn't enough information about this event. You have to dig deep like I did to find these forecasts. I would support having 1-2 sentences about it as Drdpw, but a whole section seems overkill and makes the mention of the subject Wikipedia:UNDUE. Shmego2 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral I can't tell whether adding the information would be WP:UNDUE or not. _ZZ^Z'S 01:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Switching to Oppose. The addition of this material is WP:UNDUE. I could not find any high-quality, let alone reliable sources by scientific publishers that has shown the AccuWeather forecast as accurate. My reasoning is also per JavaHurricane. _ZZ^Z'S 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support if nominator can provide a source. ✶Quxyz✶ 03:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Misinterpreted discussion, I thought that this was already policy honestly and there was someone exposing AccuWeather's shenanigans. ✶Quxyz✶ 03:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Actually, Im reading it over again and Im honestly really confused on what the nominator is asking: adding discussion of the blunders and overhype in Accuweather forecasting, if so a source should be attached, or are we deleting content created by Accuweather, which I believe there has been consensus for. ✶Quxyz✶ 04:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Quxyz, the discussion was started at a request of Drdpw in a deletion of the section without several references. Basically, this discussion was a "should we have any information at all regarding AccuWeather's forecast blunder in the article", since another editor (Drdpw) said it was "questionable notability". Drdpw has edited the article since this discussion started as well as with the larger-content in the section as well, so unless they comment, I am interpretating that as a silent consensus from them. If that is the case, then this discussion was more of a formality at their request, given it appears no one here actually opposing mentioning the AccuWeather forecast blunder. See the "AccuWeather controversy" section in the article, which is what this discussion was started over. Hopefully that explains why this discussion was started. It was at the request of another editor, who seems to be in silent agreement (no comments here + editing the article still after a discussion request), so this was like a "formality". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Without even analyzing the sources, I do think that the linked diff unfairly targets Accuweather. I believe at least a couple other models, like the GFS, did have Sara becoming a major hurricane and pulling into Florida at around Category 2 strength. I think a section for forecasting errors in general could be made, like in Hurricane Oscar (2024) and Hurricane Otis, in which Accuweather could be further discussed in that section. It is also way too damning of a section to rely on two sources from Twitter. While I understand that these meteorologists have credentials, their Twitter accounts may not be fact checked like an organization's page. Further, the first paragraph is entirely WP:PRIMARY and possibly WP:OR. ✶Quxyz✶ 04:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose for reasons I have stated above. Also, I have noticed that there have been more sources added, but they are all still based on Twitter and the section still has the fundamental problem of unfairly targeting AccuWeather for a bad prediction among many. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe in Met history? The controversy seems really overblown - it was a bad forecast. Maybe include something like, "initial forecasts suggested the possibility of significant intensification if Sara moved farther north." Then give model examples predicting Cat 4, and the Accuweather forecast. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Due weight is determined in terms of the coverage of a topic by reliable sources, and all references in the existing section are to Twitter statements by some meteorologists. A quick Google search I did showed almost no RS covering the forecast and the backlash Accuweather received, and as such I find keeping this UNDUE content in the article untenable regardless of our opinions on the matter - WP:ILIKEIT and all, after all. JavaHurricane 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – a separate section as WP:UNDUE. Having a separate section exaggerates this small thing it out of proportion. The content would be more apropos in an article about sensationalized journalism or criticism of AccuWeather, than it is here. Perhaps, in its place, a sentence or two might be added to the meteorological history section about initial overblown forecasts for the system. Drdpw (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A quick Google search showed nothing about Accuweather's bad forecast. If significant coverage of this controversy was present, I would've seen multiple news about it with a quick Google search. A more thorough search did show a couple of articles mentioning it, but that's about it. It appears that this controversy is blown out of proportion and should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I think mentioning it a little bit like how other users mentioned is the best use of this controversy. Side note: This is one of the main reasons why I don't consider AccuWeather as a reliable source. INeedSupport ^:3 18:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose In seven years of being around here I've never seen AccuWeather forecasts included in any article since they are not official forecasts from a U.S Government agency. Sara was never "forecast" to become a major hurricane even if weather models did show that happening. It's not something we can really include because of that. Cooper 21:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. The collection of tweets is something I would expect to see written by a journalist investigating AccuWeather's forecasting capabilities, not in a Wikipedia article where we are only to write what reliable sources say (WP:V). If forecast errors have been covered by RSes (i.e. not random meteorologists posting on social media) feel free to include in the meteorological history.
  Separately, "controversy" sections like these should not be titled as such per WP:NPOV – especially when there are neutrally worded options like "Forecast errors", "Modelling errors", etc. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)