Talk:WeatherStar

Weather Network use

Was this also used by The Weather Network (and MétéoMédia) with data from Environment Canada?   –radiojon 02:38, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Weatherstars and The Weather Network...

Yes, it certainly was, at least the WeatherStar 4000. The Weather Network in Canada also used WS4000s, albeit programmed with their own fonts & graphics (of course) and weather data from Environment Canada. This would make sense to me, since the WS4000 unit was designed and manufactured for both TWC and TWN by none other than a Canadian company, Amirix [1], based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

I'm not sure about Meteomedia, but I'd assume that they used the same, considering that TWN & Meteomedia are both owned by Pelmorex, which TWC here in the USA has a majority stake in, if I'm not mistaken...

IMO, the Canadian TWN WS4000s use a much better-looking, foundry-quality font (a swiss/helvetica-looking one) for it's forecast screens, as opposed to the more computerish-looking font used by the American TWC WS4000/Weatherstar Jrs (although that font is also used by the TWN 4000s for severe weather warning scrolls).

Here's a link to a thread on twcclassics.com posted by a a Canadian fellow who shared some screen captures of TWN from 1993, so you can see for yourself:

http://www.twcclassics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=133

Nowadays, TWN uses a different system that still looks almost the same as the TWN WS4000 (according to the poster of the thread at the above link). I'm wondering if it's a Intellistar-type system as well, but programmed to TWN's specs...

misternuvistor 05:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

IntelliStar 2

When could an IntelliStar 2 article be created? It's been out in beta for a while. Apple & TWC Fan (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple & TWC Fan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that this and all WeatherStar related articles be merged into one (excluding Weatherscan). I do not believe that an article dedicated to each version is noteworthy as this technology is not notable outside of the Weather Channel fanbase. MikeM2011 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why bother with merging them now? It would just turn this article into a large cluster. Also, the separate articles on the WeatherStar systems have done fine for all these years as well. Besides, if they didn't do so well at first, then they would have been merged ages ago, unless I'm missing something that has changed in Wikipedia's policies. --ZLMedia 12:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason why there is a merger proposal is because some other wiki editors have nominated all the WeatherStar articles to be deleted. These people obviously hate old computers and want to erase all mention of their existence. These articles need to be rewritten and all the unreliable sources removed. If that does not work, then merge the WeatherStar articles into one, and then condense it so it won't be one giant article. But it is not necessary to attack and destroy old computers. In Correct (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears though that only the Weather Star 4000 and IntelliStar 2 Jr articles have met such faith though, and the primary reason is mainly due to the information being trivial. I guess that would make sense then, but I'd probably keep the IntelliStar article separate from this merger if it does happen. The IntelliStar is actually a more-known system to the public, and actually has more factual information in its article than the rest of the other STAR articles. --ZLMedia 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a proponent of deleting IntelliStar 2 Jr, and IntelliStar 2, if no independent reliable sources can be found on the subjects. I want to clarify that I do not "hate old computers"; I'm an old computer engineer myself, grew up on old computers, and am glad to see information on them preserved. However, Wikipedia has a "notability" requirement for article inclusion, described at WP:GNG and elsewhere, that generally requires the existence of multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage about a subject. In the case of Intellistar 2, I haven't found any reliable source in Google that mentions even its name, let alone verifies that all the technical details in the article are accurate.

If the information in these articles isn't already copied to another website, I'd suggest copying it elsewhere, even to a forum post, then use archive.org to make an archival copy of that copy, as a means of preserving the information. I would not expect the information in IntelliStar 2 or IntelliStar 2 Jr to be around much longer. Agyle (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I came across a "Weather Channel wiki" at wikia.com, which looks like an excellent place to merge unsourced information from these articles before it's deleted. The TWC Wiki doesn't seem to have any verifiability requirements. It looks like the Wikipedia articles are the result of years of very minor observations by TWC fans, and the wikia site seems like a natural place to preserve that effort before it's removed here. Agyle (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of IntelliStar 2 here, as there are no reliable sources cited with which to verify that anything in the article is true. Agyle (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merger of Weather Star Jr and Weather Star III here, as they contain no information verifiable with a cited source that isn't already contained in this article. I nominated both articles for deletion based on failure to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement for a stand-alone article. Agyle (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on WeatherStar

Here are some mostly-reliable sources on WeatherStar (called "WeatherSTAR" by most sources; STAR="Satellite Transmitter Addressable Receiver"), which may be useful in expanding this article, or verifying information in it. I've included small excerpts from restricted-access journal articles. Agyle (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• (Contains technical information on WeatherSTAR and WeatherSTAR XL)

• Note: One author is/was an employee of The Weather Channel, so be aware this is not an independent source

• Note: Listed as a blog, on TV channel site; questionable reliability.

• "The WeatherSTAR 4000 Emulator for Quasi-Operational Dissemination of Real-time Weather Data recorded conference presentation; dubious reliability.

Weather Star 4000 merger

An AfD decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather Star 4000 (2nd nomination) was concluded with a decision to merge Weather Star 4000 into this article. I don't see any of its material as appropriate for merging here, as this article already has a section on the WS4000, and the WS4000 article cites no reliable sources. Any opinions? Agyle (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have complete the merge and moved nothing new into this article. If you feel something critical is missing in the WS-4000 discussion here, please feel free to make edits to it in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Citations to reliable secondary sources would be appreciated. I have archived the old WS-4000 talk page above, and Talk:Weather Star 4000 now redirects here. --Bejnar (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Metro Map product is back on the STAR 2 xD

The STAR xD units somehow have the metro map back, as shown in this video from wxTV. [2] Dunno if this is a glitch or something. Oh well =/ Nintenchan (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: the racial slur incident

I understand that the mention of the incident where a WeatherStar was tampered to display a racial slur is just using that example to illustrate the vulnerability of the WeatherStar's programmability, but is it REALLY necessary to have the direct quote on the page? I really didn't expect to have to explain why I showed my friend an article including the hard R MilesPrower1992 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)