Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Chris TCR

[1] --Ajm⁸¹ 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No surprises there. The last two should have the changes if there are any (Florence possibly Cat 2 with the Recon data, Ernesto has several question marks attached). CrazyC83 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A big "Hmm" here. Might the NHC be watching us? Looking at the Chris report, they pretty much only mention what we mention in our impact section. Both mention the flooded rice fields, 2 inches of rainfall across several countries with 4 inches in mountainous territory of Dominican Republic, severe flooding in Dominican Republic which left some people homeless. This is very curious given that information came from a Dominican Republic website in Spanish, something (to my knowledge) the NHC doesn't usually use (it seems they typically use relief web or NCDC reports). Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it's a pretty interesting coincidence if you look at both articles closely. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, they also make a big deal about the storm's indirect effects, regarding the rise of prices in crude oil in the New York Stock Exchange in London. Even more, they copied one sentence verbatim! Anticipation of a threat to supply by a potential Hurricane Chris coupled with high demand during an ongoing heat wave were cited as factors in the price move. That is exactly what we have written. I highly doubt it is just a coincidence. If the NHC is indeed watching us, that is a huge pat on the back. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hink, you realise you have just provided evidence of a copyright violation by the NHC from wikipedia! That particular sentence is slightly awkward IMO, there should be attribution to wikipedia...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically that's all that is needed, attribution, since the TCR is PD and meets the "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others" criterion. – Chacor 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert here: it may be worth taking th is to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Thing is if they give WP attribution they have converted GFDL material into PD material, which means someone else could use the NHCs version in a way that does break the GFDL protected wiki bits, assuming falsely it was PD-USGov. Lets get a reply from Stacy Stewart first...--Nilfanion (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I never thought I'd see the day when NHC would be copying us. Has anyone emailed Stacy Stewart yet? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the NHC is using "us" as an unofficial source of info. There is proof on this talk page and elsewhere. Lots of websites use "us" as a source of info, especially forks and mirrors. AstroHurricane001 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Forks and mirrors don't really count, because to use us is effectively what they do... interesting about the NHC though. Maybe Thegreatdr had a part to play? ;) – Chacor 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that sentence - give yourself a pat on the back. :) Pobbie Rarr 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me. =) If they did use this website, I'd attribute it more to Gary Padgett including links to this page than anyone else. It could just indicate the expansion of Wikipedia into the collective conscience, since it is now somewhere between the 10-12th most hit website on the internet. Thegreatdr 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As of today, it's 12th. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I noted that particular passage in my blog today, because I'd never seen that type of info in the TC report before, and I thought it was unusual (I emailed Steve Gregory about it because I thought he'd get a kick out of it). I didn't realize that Wiki was the source. Just be flattered. I don't think it needs to be attributed. But here's the funny part: Stacy isn't a big fan of the internet, from my understanding, especially of weather forums. Maybe he likes Wiki. Chacor you could email him and ask.  :-) Or, maybe someone emailed him the info without attribution (much more likely in my opinion than Stew surfing the web). Margie 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It kind of worries me if the NHC is using this website as a source for their official reports; it's supposed to be the other way around! :) --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it pretty cool. I do not think that people should go emailing the NHC stating that they "copied" our wiki entries and such, as I believe (just my opinion) that having such authoritative organizations as the NHC use our info is remarkably flattering and demonstrates how some of Wikipedia's articles are of professional quality. I believe I am finally able to say this with confidence now, "Wikipedia's articles and documentation on Atlantic hurricanes is the best source in the world for that information. The page is easily accessible, completely up-to-date, and contains a plethora of cited and factually accurate information. I doubt this kind of info (in such a nice, consistent format in one location) exists in any other place in the world!!! Instead of the NHC searching a myriad of research data and graphs, I bet they just come here. Good job everyone!!! Oh, and although I would definitely prefer that they mention us, I am not at all outraged that they did not. In fact, if they had it may have seemed unprofessional due to Wikipedia's structure and easy-editability which is unfortunately so often the object of "professional" and media criticism. The great kawa 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with The great kawa. While I would have loved to have seen the NHC reference us (if indeed they did get this info from us), I don't think it would be a prudent move to raise a stink about it. I think what would be better is to invite the NHC specialists to come edit here and help us. That way, we can really improve our articles, and make the statement that Kawa did with all the confidence that it is indeed true. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the NHC used Wikipedia (which looks likely from that sentence imo), attribution has two functions from our viewpoint: firstly it gives us the kudos, but much more importantly self referencing issues can be avoided. From the NHC's POV it may be a bad thing to reference Wikipedia, but a static link to a specific version or just going to our sources directly might be good. The copyright issue is minor really, we don't care (its freely available from the NHC...), but we could really do with attribution so we don't make self-refs... The obvious solution if the NHC can't/won't give attribution is to ensure EVERY fact on our articles is properly cited (or marked as unsourced).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• So, time to spruce up Chris and send it to FAC? ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now let's not get carried away. There's no proof that that paragraph came from Wikipedia (I find the idea a little farfetched myself). Has anyone thought it could be just a coincidence? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there proof we both copied it verbatim from the same reference? That would be interesting to know. Thegreatdr 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific sentence in question originates here. The source article provides the sourcing for it, but that sentence in that exact form first appears on Wikipedia. That sentence is an unusual phrasing and is not in NHC-style, I'd say its more than mere coincidence personally.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nilf. It seems a bit more than coincidence that a sentence such as that is word for word identical, and that other information in their report is very similar to the information here. I also did a Google search for the exact sentence word-for-word, and all the pages that came up were either WP mirrors or pages that were citing Wikipedia. On that note, I suppose it is possible that they may not have thought that they were using Wikipedia as a source, since other websites have the information mirrored. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone here maybe should get a job at the NHC? It's amazing how far we've come in the last 2 years - I think Katrina was our turning point. CrazyC83 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

South Atlantic activity

[2], [3]

A ship report notes 15.4 m/s winds with pressure of 1009 mbar (15.4m/s = 30 kt/55mph).

Quikscat returned some 40-kt vectors. – Chacor 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a subtropical storm. I think it should be mentioned on the South Atlantic storms page. BTW the NOAA mentioned "us". See sections above, especially the Chris TCR and the Our track maps - Used by a NOAA Agency!. Wikipedia is mostly public domain, so our images and info can usually be used. AstroHurricane001 13:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, Wikipedia is not public domain. Rather, Wikipedia content is licensed under the GNU FDL. – Chacor 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The track maps are public domain. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting about the S. Atln storm, as it is pretty early for their season (it's June down there right now). Hurricanehink (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well fine for them, as they'll have a chance to get a suntan before they fall off Earth (remember, everything's upside down in the S hemisphere...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.29.200 (talk • contribs).

Come on now, December in the NHem is December in the SHem. :P – Chacor 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice find Chacor! It looks at least like a subtropical storm. (Quite a large wind field). -- WmE 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really my find, heh. Someone at Storm2k. – Chacor 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Closed circulation, I'll give it that, but I'd have to say it's extratropical. See the line of cumulus clouds adjacent to it? That tells me that it's connected with a frontal system. It's appearance reminds me of an Atlantic tropical depression that's about to dissipate. The winds in that thing can't be more than 25 knots (30 mph). -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was at the tail end of a frontal zone, which makes its phase obscure, just by using that satellite image. However, our South American desk indicated it was a frontal wave on its surface analysis on December 12, so I'd say extratropical. A system spawned by a Mesoscale Convective Complex can form a warm core for a while, whether it is frontal or not, due to latent heat release of the convection. Thegreatdr 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Those kind of systems can also produce a decieving vortex that looks like a closed LLCC. That may be what's happening here. Rabbit-in-the-clouds syndrome anyone? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's weird that the NRL havent declared an invest on it. Storm05 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the NRL was for mostly North Atlantic storms. This could be one to watch. AstroHurricane001 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now difficult to locate on satellite. Granted, vis images are black. – Chacor 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey cool, it formed on my birthday. That's pretty awesome. →Cyclone1→ 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Official ACE source

The NCDC in their Atlantic Tropical Cyclones page has the ACE calculations for all the storms in the season. Should we replace our ACE totals with them? Titoxd^(?!?) 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. There's probably little, if any difference between their calcs and ours, though if they have updated Ernesto and Florence it should be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The numbers appear to be outdated ("Last Updated Wednesday, 04-Oct-2006 08:12:27 EDT") and invalid. Look at the ACE for Helene and Florence. Best track and advisory intensities are always in multiples of 5, so the fourth digit after the decimal should always be a 5 or a 0. Also, some are off by a few points, such as Helene. My calculations say around 25.0 operationally and 24.3 in the best track, but that page says 27.9 for some reason. Perhaps contacting the NCDC to see what's up would be best. --Ajm⁸¹ 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize they weren't updated. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernesto TCR

[4] --Ajm⁸¹ 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, 36 pages for Ernesto, the Watches/Warnings aren't even till Page 29. Finally out though. Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's huge! It does mention that he might have reached hurricane intensity at NC landfall. Lots of observations as he spent most of his life over land... CrazyC83 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It was the most notable storm of the '06 season, sure it's big. Katrina had 43 pages, although you'd expect the gap between Ernesto and the storm of the century to be a bit larger. I still think Ernesto was a hurricane at landfall in North Carolina. The pressure at landfall was 985. Tropical storms don't usually hang around that part of the barometer, even in October, when the ambient pressures are often lower. However, you name it, it's happened in the Atlantic. A few freaks include Isidore (2002), Wilma, Katrina, and Gilbert (1988). However, note that all those were at one time very intense hurricanes with unusually low pressures and all those low readings save for Katrina and Wilma happened during weakening (Wilma's was, naturally, the lowest reading as a storm before peak intensity at 982). Ernesto first became a hurricane with a pressure of 992. That's a little above normal, so it didn't have some weird pressure gradient at that time. And all the readings prior to 0000z on September 1 were near or slightly above normal. So if that pressure gradient changed off the coast of North Carolina, it did so in a hurry (no more than 6h). So I think Ernie was hurricane twice, although never reaching more than 65 knots. All NHC is saying is that they have no evidence to support the conclusion that it became a hurricane again. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 07:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I never thought Ernie was a hurricane near Haiti. I expected that to be kicked out and replaced with a NC hurricane landfall. Hmm, oh well. I guess I still have Flo's TCR to look forward to. (Come on, Cat 2!!)

I am in agreement as well re: NC landfall. However, I also do think that Ernesto was NOT a hurricane while in the Caribbean. 992 is too high for a hurricane when the data to back it up is not there. I would have kept it at 60 knots south of Haiti. BTW, Delta last year had 980 and was a tropical storm (although I disagreed with that). CrazyC83 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One example: Cindy (2005) 991 mbar - 75 mph.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another: Bob (1985) 1002 mbar - 75 mph. Also, Crazy C, Delta was a late-season storm that came out of an extratropical system. Those almost always have low pressures. That's one of the reasons why the Perfect Storm of 1991 was so dangerous. The huge ambient pressure difference (972 mbar to 70 mph of wind speed) helped create monster waves, one measuring 110 feet high according to one Canadien weather buoy. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed TS

It's official! Should have been Beryl, backing everything else up one. CrazyC83 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NHC is starting to scare me; for the third time in two years, they've missed a storm (Subtropical storm, Gamma, and now this one). Not to mention 16E last year, which even NHC said could have been Pilar, which is what I call it. Prior to Gamma's first life amid the 2005 insanity, the last truely tropical storm NHC had missed was Tropical Storm One in 1987! Between those two, only two subtropical storms (1997 and 2000) were missed. This is the kind of stuff that used to happen in the 1960's and '70's. With all of the technological advancements and expensive forecasting instruments, mistakes on even brief storms like this one should happen only very rarely. These recent miscues are a little disconcerting. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems they are very conservative on upgrading, with many times they wait until recon or visible confirms it. I suppose it's a good thing, to be very positive it is a storm. It's not like anything would have been different if this year's unnamed storm was classified operationally. It still would have taken the same path. It still would not have affected land. Boats in the path of the storm would be warned either way (high seas forecasts or advisories). The lack of upgrading only really affects us weather fanatics. If they miss a tropical storm making landfall, like the 1987 storm, that wouldn't be good, but generally they're on the ball when it comes to affecting landmasses. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...Or the hurricane offshore New England/Nova Scotia in September 1992 that probably should have been Bonnie. This shouldn't scare you. It's just their conservative policy, as has been previously stated. Thegreatdr 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1998, Javier was declared dissipated on September 11, and then restrengthened into a tropical storm and made landfall as a depression, all of which was found in post-season analysis.

And I agree, had this system threatened land, it probably would have been found in the season, at least as a depression. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1997's subtropical storm paid a visit to the Outer Banks but gale warnings were issued. However, in the post-Katrina world we live in, something with a name carries more clout psycologically with most North Americans. The newsstations usually give it more coverage and make a bigger deal out of it. Not that the word "gale" won't get people's attention, but they are less likely to be complacent if the thing's got a name. New England's not as bad about it though, not since the Perfect Storm, or really the forties with the big gales they had then. But now I'm rambling... -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are careful about naming storms because named storms are covered by insurance. Good kitty 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just expected a STS, but fully tropical? Cool. Look how far north it is! That has to be some kind of record for July. →Cyclone1→ 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess they are more worried about another Kendra? (i.e. a falsely declared tropical storm) CrazyC83 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding images of this one is really hard. I made one with HRPT data. The data is from NOAA, but I used a program I d/led to make it. This should be okay to use, right? Just like all the images created with Photoshop? Good kitty 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded it. Delete it if necessary. There's nothing else I could find. Good kitty 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice one from GIBBS: [5]. But the NHC report has the best one, it's on page 11. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick HURDAT search, and since 1940 (about the beginning of reconaissance) the storm was the northernmost location for tropical cyclogenesis to occur (39.1 N beats Arthur of 2002's 34.3) in July, as well as the northernmost location for a tropical depression in July to become a tropical storm (40 N beats Ana of 91's 36.2). The records only apply to the month of July. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet that the NHC will get a lot of complants from the other meteorlogists and possibly the WMO when 2007 rolls around. I think the similar reasons stated above can be explained why the Joint Typhoon Warning Center is no longer the WMO RMSC tracking center anymore. Storm05 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The JTWC never was. – Chacor 17:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yes it was chacor before 2000 it was the RSMC for the WPac anyway its good to see the NHC testing out a new product for the atlantic Jason Rees 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

source for which part of my statment ? 1st part wikipedia WPac 1999 2nd NHC website

Nowhere does it say JTWC was an RMSC. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

no it doesnt but it says it names the storms im sure it was an rsmc but im just doing a search on the internet Jason Rees 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because it names it doesn't mean it is an RMSC. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, the RSMC has always been the JMA. The JTWC only had naming responsibilities. Please make an attempt to find out the facts. – Chacor 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

People, try to find out the facts before claiming something is what it is not. "The Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Tokyo-Typhoon Center with activity specialization in analysis, tracking and forecasting of TCs in the western North Pacific and the South China Sea was established in July 1989 at the Headquarters of the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). " – Chacor 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NCDC update

Storm reports have been updated to September 30th, 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What storm reports? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The storm event reports. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Florence TCR

Finally! Now we just need the track maps. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Atlantic map is out now. --Ajm⁸¹ 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll upload it if someone hasn't already done that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been uploaded to Commons, but someone had a file at the same name locally, which I have listed on IFD. --Ajm⁸¹ 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh shitaki. I just loaded it on Wikipedia. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The PNG file has some problems. Can you upload it as a gif? Good kitty 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did...unless someone's replaced it in the past 20 minutes. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting note: The maximum flight-level winds observed were 96 kt in the northeastern eyewall at 700 mb at 1724 UTC 10 September. While this would normally support surface winds of 85 kt, a subsequent pass through the northeastern eyewall measured winds of only 74 kt. This suggests the possibility the 96 kt winds were transient. Based on this assumption, the peak intensity of Florence is set at 80 kt – a category 1 hurricane. However, it cannot be ruled out the system briefly had category 2 status near 1800 UTC 10 October.

That is my guess as well. I think the peak intensity was indeed 85 kt and it was a Category 2 storm, as I did all along. They mention the fact, but like Delta last year, stay on the conservative side. (They did not do that with several other storms like Cindy, Emily, Gaston and Erika) CrazyC83 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They need irrefutible evidence. One pass that was much different than any of the other passes can easily be ruled out as rain contamination. I know that may not make sense to us, but these machines aren't infalible. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

October? I assume you mean September. Lol. →Cyclone1→ 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about adding Videos

There are some really nice GOES-E IR Satellite Loops of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season here. The Plymouth site puts them up for every named storm every season. So, I was wondering if someone could start adding them to the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season, at least. I would do it, but I would probably mess it up or something. I'd rather the people that know what they are doing add them.

To get the link, just click "GOES-E IR Satellite Loop" for each storm, then copy the link location into Wikipedia. I really enjoy watching these movies, and I think it would be a great addition to the Tropical Pages on Wikipedia.

Years 1998-2006 can be found under "Historical Tropical Weather Events" here.

Please tell me what you think of this idea! -Winter123 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status? – Chacor 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I had found this site quite a long time ago (2005), and brought it up in IRC during the fiasco in finding images for Boris and Julio (EPHS 02), but decided against using them for these same reasons. We could ask permission or find out if GOES photos are fair use. Jake52 My talk 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to use this NOAA site. It doesn't have the 2006 storms, yet, but it has a loop of every storm worldwide back to 1983. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to oggify stuff that's fine with me, but don't expect help!--Nilfanion (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The NOAA site's movies are of worse quality than the Plymoth site. Plus, The message "However, Firefox and Internet Explorer seem to play these using the default Quicktime plugin, which doesn't work." means that the NOAA movies would cause a lot of hassle for the 98% of people that use IE or Firefox.

And no, unfortunately I don't know any copyright info. This was just an idea I had. -Winter123 06:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Track Map

Does anyone any opinon about replacing the old track map with the new one? B/C the new one is incomplete. Storm05 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There's two versions of Image:2006 Atlantic hurricane season map.png, one local copy on en-wikipedia (which is outdated, and up for deletion) and one on commons (which is correct, and of a larger resolution compared to the .gif file). When the local copy is deleted, the correct map will display. Hope that cleared up your question. – Chacor 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article for the unnamed storm

Is there any way such can be assembled? Where should I go for information, knowing it was considered to be a non-tropical system until the post-analysis? (Although it was close enough to land this side of the Atlantic that it was affecting land) CrazyC83 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It lasted for a day, then became extratropical. I'm not sure there's really any information that can be found, though if you can find any, then by all means go for it. --Coredesat 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeta referencing

I know Zeta was a storm of the 2005AHS but not the 2006AHS; it is mentioned in here for completeness. However, I'm not sure how to best go about citing that - ideally only one source should be needed. The Nov TWSAT is pretty good; but I'm not sure how to best phrase it. 2005AHS ended Nov 30, 2006AHS began Jun 1. There are a number of problems and we do need to cite really:

1. Is a season-crosser part of the season in which it formed?
2. Is a season-crosser part of the season in which it dissipated?
3. Are these two things mutually exclusive?

The best source for this article is one that explicitly says "Zeta was not part of 2006AHS" and doesn't lead us to infer that by its omission (like in the TWSAT).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it should be here or not (because I definitely think it deserves mentioning) but just a reference that says "Yes, it actually is counted by the NOAA as part of the 2005 season" would be nice. I'm not sure what the source above says, but if it does say that, just slap it on. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree it needs mentioning. The NHC's report on Zeta (check its article) clearly calls it part of the 2005 season. The link above says "The 2006 season had nine named storms", if Zeta was counted it would make that 10 - that's probably enough for us. However, I haven't personally seen a source that gives a definitive answer to #3 above. I'm sure the project members will hunt one down over the next couple days or at worst just bug the NHC ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine. I just thought it was a very bold statement to make without a ref is all. But, again, I'm sure it will be referenced eventually. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like NO names retired

NOAA site shows the 2012 list identical to the 2006 list. Since the WMO meeting has passed with no announcement, that presumably means that the list remains intact. First time since 1997 but no real surprise. CrazyC83 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Open your eyes, please: "Last updated November 28, 2006" – Chacor 04:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can confirm, after receiving an email response from the NHC. No press release was issued by NOAA because no names were retired. PResumably this is the same for the Pacific, but you never know. – Chacor 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please fix the refs I added, as they appear with an error, they need a name or something. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not how ref tags work! Please learn how to use them beforee using them. Using "<ref name="The Weather Channel"></ref>" does zilch. – Chacor 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll try to take some time learning about ref tags :( . Anyway, the information about Francois, Newfoundland, I've seen on wikipeda before, possibly on the main article about Florence. Why not use that citation? Also, User:Mitchazenia has also tried to fix my errors, using "<ref name="The Weather Network/>". Also, you removed some info I added about Beryl and Florence about where they dissipated. You didn't remove it for any of the other storms I added it onto, so why those? Please explain if possible. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they were attributed to refs that did not work. The others seem to either have refs that work, or are in the TCR anyway. – Chacor 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Length of section

I had just fixed something that is an obvious Wiki no-no, but my past experience with this page has prompted me to alter my better judgement when it was reverted and come here. It seems that the one sentence in the "Retirement" section is standard. I'm not arguing that. It'd be nice to have a section about the non-retirement, that is, if it can be expanded. I either ask that someone take up the mini-project of sourcing an expanded section, or reintegrate it into the section above. Unless there are some dire circumstances that prevent this from happening, I request that this is what be done. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could do it yourself, if you think it's really needed. Obviously no-one else has done so yet because they either didn't see the need to or didn't think of doing so. If there's really a need, why not {{sofixit}}? – Chacor 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to augment the section. I removed the section before, but someone quickly reverted me. I feel it's inappropriate for such a good article to look like it's lacking content in that section, so I tricked the article into looking more full by actually taking it out. In my opinion, I don't think there's enough info on the internet, etc. to warrant its own section, so my suggestion would be to merge it into the above, but I respect that WP:TROP has a system, and thus I would suggest that maybe it be increased in size. I don't really care either way, but it seems that it's just against what any other conventions in Wikipedia would be. If anyone else has the time to add more stuff, I'd suggest doing so. Otherwise, I hope you see my point. I've tried to fix it myself before by taking out the section, but that, again, was reverted. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk pages

Many people will be contributing to this talk page when the seasonal activity picks up. However, please remember that WP:NOT a soapbox, nor is it a discussion forum. Several sites exist for the latter activity. This page is supposed to be about the upkeep of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, the page, not discussion about the season. Looking at it from a strictly editorial matter:

• INVESTs and TCFAs are an irrelevance, the editors who watch the season know when they exist. We don't need to say so.
• If a new depression forms, it doesn't need a post here. Just add it to the article.
• Ditto any new information regarding the system as its life develops.
• Speculation about what NHC discussions mean isn't relevant to the upkeep of the article.

So please before posting a comment regarding an active storm, consider the question: "Does this matter to the upkeep of the Wikipedia article?". If the answer is yes, is a talk-page post needed? Odds are all that is needed is an edit to the article. If the answer is no, why bother posting at all? Take it to a webforum, there are many places which would be happy for that. The same applies to the other basins.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place, dude. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tito, actually this is. This is aimed specifically at the readers of this page (read this talk page not the article).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm DOH... would help if i was on 2007? XD--Nilfanion (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tracks map error

Hi. There is an error in the track map from NOAA: although Ernesto is shown to haave a short period of time as a hurricane, it is listed as a tropical storm at the side table. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting error. Excellent find.Mitch^contribs 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. NHC spotted it long ago and uploaded an updated one onto their website. We're just slow on the uptake. – Chacor 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to update it but the new image gave me an error: Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters. Can someone else fix it? --Ajm⁸¹ 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I probably coudn't fix it, because I have no experience on uploading image to wiki whatsoever. Also, if you do fix it, fix the one on commons as well. Also, I'm not sure why this happened:

del) (cur) 19:00, August 10, 2007 . . Ajm81 . . 4035×3094 (1,607,013 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision) (del) (rev) 18:58, August 10, 2007 . . Ajm81 . . 4672×3578 (1,519,701 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision) (del) (rev) 18:46, August 10, 2007 . . Ajm81 . . 4035×3094 (1,607,013 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision) (del) (rev) 18:44, August 10, 2007 . . Ajm81 . . 4672×3578 (1,519,701 bytes) , as I don't know how you would revert it 3 times and have an error on uploading the first time. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image reversion is different from normal reversion. Please, no offence intended but if you're gearing for an RFA (as your user page suggests) you're making yourself look foolish. – Chacor 14:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Um, problem, still not fixed yet. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)