Talk:Beaufort scale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

I learned to use the beaufort scale in 1941 while plotting daily synoptic charts in the Army Air Corps at Kelly Field, Tx. This is very good.jonhays 00:35, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whould it be too much to ask to see the unexpurgated sequence or are electrons in short supply these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.66.170 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion/variation[edit]

Although metric measures are probably a better choice, should I also include the US Imperial measures? (ie: wave heights in feet 0, 0, 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-13, 13-20, 13-20, 13-20, 20-30, 30-45, and 45+) Also, there is a corresponding sea state scale, 0-9, which is common in North America due to its use in Bowditch and inclusion in Navy logs. - Amgine 18:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the table can be extended according to section E of this document. Momoko

km/h as opposed to m/s[edit]

Is it common (and if so, where) to denote wind speeds in km/h? In my native Sweden, I have only ever seen m/s (and of course knots in nautical contexts). It may well be that in other parts of the world, km/h is used instead, but if not, I think the table should give values in m/s (first because it's the SI unit), knots, and mph. -- Jao 19:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Of the three countries I've lived in, weather forecasts in two (Germany and Canada) use km/h, while one (Britain) uses the Beaufort scale itself. I've not seen m/s, although I'm sure it is standard in scientific contexts, and as you say in Sweden! I added km/h as I thought it would be more intuitively intelligible to the majority of readers; even if they're not familiar with wind measurements in km/h per se, most people will have some idea of what it feels like if you stick your hand out of the car window at 100km/h. I suspect anyone with a scientific inclination is capable of going to the article on knots and performing the relevant computation for themselves, but I certainly wouldn't be against adding m/s to the article as well. Best wishes, Cambyses 08:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me that km/h should stay. As to whether we could have a fourth measure, well, I won't go into that. It might become too much. -- Jao 10:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

In Bulgaria usually meteorolists are forecasting the winds in m/s, while news reporters on the TV are using km/h. Thus I am going to put both under single column in the Bulgarian version. -- Goldie 19:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M/s is normally used in Denmark, as well, and Km/h is pretty much reserved for vehicle speeds. A scandinavian tradition, perhaps. I'd say m/s should definitely stay on the list, if nothing else, though; while it may be 'normal' for people to experience (strong) windpressure on the playful hand at high vehicle speeds, m/s seems more immediately applicable to the experience of windpressure on the whole body, and ideas of high fast you'd need to move (running) to keep up with it/ how hard work it is to walk against the wind.

Why do the km/h values have m/s after it, when there are separate m/s values? Tafenau (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speeds[edit]

On, 17 June 2004 21:12 speeds were change to mean speeds. I feel that this may have been misunderstood by the user who changed them because the user added a less than and greater than value to the mean speeds on the high and low ends. Are the means speeds really needed? -- 03:19, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Beaufort criteria for effects on sailing ships[edit]

Ought the criteria given by Beaufort, listed at both the Met and National Weather Service websites, be given here too? There does not seem to be room in the table, but maybe there is, and at the least it could be added in a separate table on this same page. - Centrx 18:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. PeteVerdon 12:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"at twelve, all sails would be stowed away" - original research?[edit]

No ship can be sailed without any sails up. In strong winds, smaller sails would be used. It seems unlikely to me that there is a direct link between the number of sails up and the wind strength on the Beaufort scale. Nor does it seem like this claim is supported by the quoted BBC reference. 89.9.81.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree with this objection and have removed the "original research" tag. Beaufort did indeed give his scale in terms of how a man-of-war would handle under sail. Force 12 is indeed described as "that which no canvas could withstand". I have supplied a reference. We can only speculate exactly what Beaufort would recommend British captains to do in force 12. But, if no canvas can withstand the wind, the logical conclusion is to run before the rigging. In contrast to what the user claims, it is standard ship handling in strong winds to take all sails down and run with the wind. For square riggers that Beaufort cared about, there is indeed a link between wind strength and number of sails up, as is clear from Beaufort's original table, as seen in the reference I have supplied. --85.24.87.73 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better reference would be the Ref 1 as it stands which I have included below from the Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/4/4/Fact_Sheet_No._6_-_Beaufort_Scale.pdf
Whilst it is true that at BS 12 no sails would be up, looking at Beaufort's criteria on sails in the above the suggestion of a linear relationship between BS and sails, as the text implied, is very misleading.
The text previously stated that at BS6 half the sails would be flown, when in fact in B's criteria all sail could be flown up to 9, given ::sufficient mast strength, back stays etc. To quote 5-9: "In which a well-conditioned man of
war, under all sail, and ‘clean full’, could just carry close hauled...".
He did alongside this note a progression of sails to be struck down and/or reefed.
Obviously the number of sails aloft is at the discretion of the master, bosun or captain. Different ships can withstand a different ::number of sails, types of sails and reefs, as well as combinations of those.
As such I have deleted the text as misleading.
A possible revision would be to copy the table from the aforementioned link.
Olivcm (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waves under hurricane?[edit]

I've always thought that there are big waves under a storm, but almost flat water under a hurricane, since the waves would be blown apart? Is that a myth, or? 83.93.224.223 12:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myth. Maybe in an extremely strong hurricane, but not in your every-day hurricane. - Cuivienen 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there, though, recorded hurricanes that, by virtue of their unusual strength, produced high swells, like the tide - with little or no foam 24.184.234.24 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper[reply]

All hurricanes generate storm surge (a lifting of the ocean due to their low pressure), and all hurricanes generate millions of foamy waves on top of the storm surge. de Bivort 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to Force 17[edit]

When was the scale extended? UK MetOffice said that the Beaufort scale was extended in 1944.[1] However, I've seen a few sources saying that it was extended in 1950's.[2][3] Which one is true? Momoko

The Nynorsk version of this page gives specific wind speeds for 13, 14, and 15. -- Evertype·✆ 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reference which mentions a 17 level scale in 1946, but this doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't extended that year. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scale is a jpeg[edit]

I don't like that. So I changed it into text again. 218.168.213.149 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Table of degrees"[edit]

[4] would have it that there's a forerunner to the Beaufort scale, so the para At that time [...] there was no scale and so they could be very subjective might want amending. The page is already in the references. 193.62.203.214 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind speed formula and deleted section[edit]

There was an uncommended deletion of the paragraph that contains the wind speed <> Bft relationship. Since I could not see any reason for this deletion I have re-inserted it. However, the formula is empirical correct (while the factor 0.836 from the German Wikipedia seems to be a slightly better fit) but there is still need for a reference. There is the astonishing fact that the Beaufort number, if interpreted as a result of rounding to the nearest integer, is strongly correlated to the wind speed via a 3/2 power law. This is equivalent to a cubic law for the dynamic pressure of the wind. If the correct coefficient is chosen the formula matches the m/s table with an error of the order of 0.1, the usual decimal precision of the m/s values including those for Beaufort numbers 13 to 16 as tabulated in "Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon" from the mid-seventies ("17" is from above "16" to infinity in that table). So it is clear that this cannot be a random correlation but an intended one. Does anyone know how the Beaufort scale speed values are initially intruduced? Maybe there is an original reference that explicitely uses a power law. If so, then this reference shoud be cited.--SiriusB 13:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This table shows wind speeds for Bft 0-17 (probably equivalent to that in "Meyers Enzyklopädie"). Apparently, also the 0.837 figure yields a good fit to that.--SiriusB 13:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the goodness of the both fits (0.836 and 0.837) and found that the 0.836 formula is slightly better according to the χ2 criterion (actually, the optimum is near 0.8359). Furthermore, the condition that the Bft wind speed from the formula lies between the maximum speed of a given B number and the minimum speed of the next higher B number is violated only for one number (B=15) for the 0.836 formula but for four numbers for the 0.837 formula. So, the 0.836 formula should be the preferred one (I did not test whether another power law might be better).--SiriusB 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I have found something. The Beaufort scale has indeed been defined by the 0.836 formula, namely after its 1946 (not 1944 according to [5]) revision and extension.

http://www.numericana.com/answer/scales.htm uses the value 0.8365 for a consistent Beaufort scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.61.242 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the formula probably a few years ago by now. Fitting the 3/2 power law is intentional in development of the formula, although was apparently incidental in the original scale. It was found some decades later to correspond to the 3/2 power law then the scale was refined to better match it. The .837 figure may be explained by lack of robustness at that time which then propagated through the years, although I don't remember the details and haven't run the numbers myself. The source for my figure as I recall was a Terence Meaden paper on the TORRO scale which has its basis in the Beaufort scale. An original source may be preferable, I'll look back at the Meaden paper and its references, and maybe also try a literature search. In the meantime, the (UK) Met Office page uses the converted 1.87*sqrt(B³) figure. Evolauxia (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Beaufort scale is defined in terms of the state of the sea surface, and not wind speed. That's way I placed the [dubious – discuss] tag. I'll dig around for a reference. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are relevant:
Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I believe an image near the top of the page makes an article look nicer. I've added a cut version of the force 12 picture (cut: without the text underneath). An anonymous user has deleted it, and I now reinstate it once so we can discuss here whether a picture is appropriate, and if so, whether this is a suitable picture. Classical geographer 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's good. Anon edit could well have been vandalism or a test. Debivort 03:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort scale in the North Atlantic[edit]

For simplicity, why not just peg Beaufort forces 12 through 16 to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale? --  Denelson83  01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mean winds?[edit]

Does anyone know what 'mean' wind speed is meant? Is it the 10 minute mean that is common now or the one hour mean wind that used to be more common? Subsea (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Force[edit]

I think it needs a mention that a force 12 wind - hurricane force - is not the same as a hurricane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.194.2 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in article[edit]

The wind speed in the scale for force 4 is 20 – 28 knots, yet in the image its 11 - 16 knots. Seems to be different in almost all of them, something wrong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.161.74 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is km/h, and one is knots. 45.40.66.167 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on in this article? Is it even correct?[edit]

Compare this article with the same scale described at Tropical_cyclone_scales#Comparisons_across_basins and Wind#Wind_force_scale. It seems like the modern Beaufort scale goes to 17. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was extended in 1946, to go to 17, as described in the intro, and the first reference by the MetOffice (even though they claim the change was done in 1944). The 1946 date though, is supported by this fairly detailed document. 45.40.66.167 (talk)

new format[edit]

I think the new table looks fine, but I wouldn't suggest adding any more images to it. Might as well stay with the consistently formatted set. de Bivort 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-article[edit]

The article has red links to every possible wind speed. I would be glad to create articles for some of them, but wonder if all they meet criteria for WP:Notability. Also every name given to that speed contains a link, which may tempt editors to create redundant articles. Already articles have been made lacking verifiable material. Let me know if you have solutions. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper[reply]

White horses[edit]

From the wind scale table we learn that a Moderate breeze has this effect on the water surface : Small waves with breaking crests. Fairly frequent white horses.

Now I wanted to find out what "white horses" could mean, so I clicked the link to find the page wind wawe, with no explanation whatsoever. Going to the page White Horse doesn't give me a clue either ...

And I do not ask just to get an answer here, I'd expect an explanation with some reference in the articles. Anyone? Thank you from no.wiki user TorSch (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and there is no reason to expect it to contain an explanation of every term used. Isn't that what a dictionary is for? --candyworm (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so as long as I am stupid (or Norwegian) enough NOT to know what the expression means, I shall be kept from learning? Aren't ALL links a help to let us understand what's in a word or an expression? Now I happen to understand the meaning of both breeze and gale - aren't THEY explanations of a term or a word just as well? The link white horses (see under "Moderate breeze") is a blue link, pointing to a page telling about Wind wave - and that page does not care to explain if the term refers to a kind of wave, a swimming animal or a bottle of Scotch. When a term is linked, I'd expect to learn something when I click on it. BTW, Wikipedia has articles to define a lot of words that appear obvious to most people, like water, sea, ocean, wave, day and hour. So don't try to cut me off with "Oh, it's just a term, we don't care to tell you what it means" ... Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? Rgds TorSch of Norwegian Wiki - TorSch (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'White horses' are the prominent white areas of spray and froth that occur at the crest of waves when the wind reaches a certain speed.
They get their name because they resemble the flowing manes of galloping white horses. At the time of Beaufort most seafaring people would have been familiar with the appearance of horse's manes as the horse was still the most widely used form of land transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above unsigned) is an interesting interpretaion. I notice that the reference to white horses that occur in the Met Office reference contains the term but wiki now does not and replaces it with the term whitecaps, which redirects to a page on waves, which refers to white caps but without ay refernce. It seems to be unhelpful and OR. I believe that white horses refers simply to the foam that is created after waves begin to break. At Firce 2 waves begin to break and there are "perhaps scattered white horses". Up to level 5 the changing appearance of the white horses forms part of the description of the waves. From level 6 up the foam looks and behaves differently. LookingGlass (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

The source page for all the images, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/ghwo/windseas_levels.php, does not exist anymore. Attys (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Beaufort Scale describes sea conditions or wind speed?[edit]

Surely the purpose of the Beaufort Scale is to describe the conditions of the sea and not wind speed? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's a wind speed scale with cues taken from the sea state. If you were on a small oiled pond with 56 knot winds, it would still be force 11, even though the sea state might be pretty mild. de Bivort 01:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A WMO report dated from 1970 [The Beaufort Scale of Wind Force: Technical and Operational Aspects (reports on marine science affairs, Report No. 3)] defines Force 11 as 'Exceptionally high waves (small and medium sized ships might be for a time lost to view behind the waves); the sea is completely covered with long white patches of foam lying in the direction of the wind; everywhere the edges of the wave crests are blown into froth; visibility affected'. I see no mention of wind speed there. Is there an alternative WMO definition that defines Beaufort Force in terms of wind speed? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOAA calls it the Beaufort Wind Scale: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html, with associated conditions on land, where there is no sea state. de Bivort 19:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Beaufort scale on land differs from that at sea. I agree also that the NOAA definition of "Beaufort Scale" is relevant, but to me this table does not look to like it is intended to be used as a definition. The question then necomes, does NOAA publish something equivalent to the WMO report, with a clear description of what is meant by (eg) "Beaufort Force 11"? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this WMO document, which seems relevant (see Appendix E) . It does mention wind speeds (though note some of these differ from those listed in the WP article), but what's not clear to me is (in the event of inconsistencies between different columns) which column is to be interpreted as definition and which columns are derived from that definition. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This publication makes it clear that the scale represents wind *conditions* and not wind speed: "The original Beaufort scale of wind force is a scale that does not present the actual velocity with which the air moves. It is merely a scale of wind conditions that was used by sailors to categorize the different sailing conditions." Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the opening statement to make it reflect better what it says in the references. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Warning Flags[edit]

I don't think these should necessarily be included in the article. The flags are part of the Coastal Warning Display Program, which is based off of warnings based off of the Beaufort scale, but it's not actually part of the Beaufort scale. I think including them may be misleading to people and make it appear that the flags are actually part of the scale. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Severe gale[edit]

Not sure if this is worth noting, but the UK Met Office uses "severe gale" and not "strong gale" for F9. 86.132.137.179 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

I couldn't find the information that Germany uses the extended Beaufort scale at the indicated link just added. Moreover, Beaufort-Skala from the same website strongly suggests that it does not. Carolina wren (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that the edit was only referencing Germany's use of the basic scale. Still, I'm going to change the link, since the original link is to an index page for framed vocabulary entries. Carolina wren (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table contents unreferenced[edit]

The table's contents appear to be unreferenced and the descriptions of sea and land conditions to vary from that given in the Met Office reference, e.g for Force 2, a Light Breeze, the Met Office states (p.9): 

Small wavelets, still short but more pronounced. 
Crests have a glassy appearance and do not break

whereas wiki's version reads: 

Small wavelets. Crests of glassy appearance, not breaking

Similar perhaps but still unnecessary OR imo, unless there is another more authorative source being used ... LookingGlass (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this post. My source reads
Small wavelets, still short but more pronounced; crests have a glassy appearance and do not break

Punctuation apart this is identical to the MO version cited above by LookingGlass. I will edit the article accordingly. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the entries for force 0, 1 and 2. I have the impression the whole table needs editing, but I stopped at 2. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Dondervogel 2. Re-reading my comment now it seems like such a small omission to note, however re-reading the table I remember struggling to distinguish between Force 1 and Force 2 without it. Your work is appreciated. LookingGlass (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough nonsense[edit]

The so-called "Extended scales" that someone keeps adding to this article bears no relation to the Beaufort scale. If there is a need in the Pacific Ocean to invent a new scale for wind speed exceeding 527 km/h that "is definitely destructive, wiping out entire regions... And it is not described in any words", then that new scale deserves an article in its own right. It does not belong here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be discounted, because it was poorly translated. We have editors that we can call on to help with translations. I think this is the best place for the content. That being said, we ought to give a closer look at the sources to verify whether they are being used or are just made up. Maybe I can run a Google translate to see if anything meaningful can be picked up about them. Jolly Ω Janner 05:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that poor translation on its own is not enough to discount it, so let's just assume for a moment this is for real, and not the figment of someone's imagination. A glance at the table shows that hurricane force winds (Beaufort Force 12) arise at about force 10 on this other scale. Therefore it is not the Beaufort scale and does not belong here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their wind speeds match up perfectly. They both have force 12 as winds over 118 km/h. At least the version in the most recent addition. Do you have any other reasons to discount it? Jolly Ω Janner 08:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by the description "high sea waves from 7 – 9 meters", which compares with > 14 m for a hurricane on the Beaufort Scale. In any case, the Beaufort scale is defined by the descriptions, not the wind speeds. The descriptions are different. Therefore by definition it is not the Beaufort scale. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly I see the nonsense has returned. I do not plan to remove it again myself but will support anyone who does. It is possible that the anon. user is not aware of our discussion on the Talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I have reverted it myself. I ran the sources through a Google translate and can only find fleeting mentions of news articles using the scales themselves. We already know (and document) that some countries in Asia use an extended to force 18. This source appears to mention a storm reach level 19. Either way, none of the sources give descriptions for the experienced conditions, so this is to be assumed original research for now. Sorry to have wasted time on the matter. I will warn the user of edit warring while I'm at it, since they have a rather authoritative tone. Jolly Ω Janner 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Scale[edit]

The current version of the page looks like it's showing the "extended scale" in the "Modern Scale" section, added recently by Minhquangdo (talk · contribs). I don't know enough about common usage of the scale to revert the changes, so maybe Dondervogel_2 (talk · contribs) or Jolly_Janner (talk · contribs) can lend their expertise to the discussion? Mmoople (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaufort scale. 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:

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

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) 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beaufort scale. 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:

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) 19:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaufort scale. 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:

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) 21:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beaufort scale. 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:

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) 23:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed second copy of beaufort scale table[edit]

There are two tables outlining the beaufort scale on the page. The top table describes the scale with more units, and is multi-media. The lower scale adds nothing additional in that all the information is already available in the top table. I cannot fathom why this page needs to have two copies of the beaufort scale, and therefore am being bold and deleting the lower one. -- cmhTC 02:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Knots speed mismatch[edit]

The knots speed values in the table do not match the corresponding knots speeds (after rounding) given by the formula. The formula is correct (is the very definition of Beaufort). That means the knot values in the table need to be changed. Haven't checked for the m/s and mph values. Tavernsenses (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:
  • which formula are you claiming to be correct?
  • in what sense is that formula "the very definition of Beaufort"?
Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting[edit]

I'm making changes for the following reasons:

  • Rowspans are for making a cell span multiple rows. A typical use case is for grouping together multiple rows of data. Here, they are not really multiple rows of data, but multiple values entered in individual cells, which don't correlate between columns. As such, it's better for logic, simplicity and maintainability to have them in individual rows.
  • The formatting was inconsistent. In particular, 0 Calm had the wind speed and wave height formatted differently from the others. It should be consistent.
  • When table cell values are short, it works well to put them on one line in the markup. But in this instance, some of the values are quite long, so I've figured it would be better for maintainability to have each cell on a separate line.

— Smjg (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaufort_scale&oldid=1206209004"