Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Category 6?

There have been rumors that the NHC is planning to add a sixth category to the Saffur Simpson Hurricane Scale, is that rumour true? Storm05 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumors? Started by whom? (In other words, 100% certainly not.) —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 18:43 UTC

It was on the Dellnet by MSN homepage yesterday as the title of a link to a video feed discussing tropical weather. I didn't have the capability to watch the video, but that's where the talk originated. --PK9 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dellnet by MSN homepage yesterday as the title of a link to a video feed discussing tropical weather."

That is by far the most confusing thing I have ever read. -Winter123 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dellnet by MSN" is the default homepage for Dell computers. They have a video section which they give "interesting" headlines to try to get you to view their video feeds. The feed I was referencing was titled "Category 6? Scientists discuss the possibility of a new category of storms" or something like that. -PK9 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the NHC probably has no power over the SS scale. Even if they did there would be precious few hurricanes in the sixth category.WotGoPlunk 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=4474C1F4-BE22-44B9-B26D-5002867C9F50 --PK9 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"U.S. government forecasters at the National Hurricane Forecast Center in Miami didn't well predict the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, partly because of their unfamiliarity with global warming."; who writes this stuff?. TimL 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would pay it no mind - it seems like an op-ed article disguised as a legitimate news story. --Coredesat 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Bill Blakemore of abcnews writes this stuff. Sensationalist/worthless journalism. TimL 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating a category 6 would be a stupid mistake. It would just dilute the strength more. Already people see a Cat 2 coming and think, it's a weak hurricane, it won't do much. "Category 5" has a certain strength to it, a strength that would be diluted by it no longer being the strongest category. And, finally, it's purely academic - the damage done by a Category 6 is not much more than that done by a category 5, because Cat 5 is already devastating. You can't destroy something even harder than that, it's already broked. --Golbez 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What's worse than "catastrophic" damage? --Coredesat 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of a typical press rumor, isn't it? It's not enough that last season had 4 cat 5 storms, sensationalism demands higher categories. It's not like they are keen to accept that Katrina was actually category 3 at landfall, a cat 3 couldn't possibly do that much damage, right?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand? We desperately need a Category 6 so we can get to Category 7: The End of the World! --Kardax 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its an evil plot by the NHC to take over the world by declaring a certain storm to be category 10 which will umm, err...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That storm is anticyclonic. The Saffir-Simpson scale can only be used in cyclonic storms. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I disagree with what you said there; first "cyclonic storms" includes Plainfield Tornado, second we don't know what powers that storm - perhaps all we can see is the upper-level anticyclonic outflow and we need dropsonde or radar data to find the cyclone underneath? In any case speculation on this storm is as sensible as the rumors on Cat 6.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Category 5 should range from 156 mph to 175 mph, and 176 or more should be cat. 6. They could make it. They just may not need to. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

category definitely not needed, > 155 mph should be good enough information (VOFFA 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree, there is no need for a Cat 6 storm. People don't take non-major storms seriously enough. Don't give them any more reason to think a Cat 2 hurricane is nothing. Someone else mentioned how the damage between Cat 5&6 would be minimal. It's the same thing with tornados. There has never been a recorded F-6 tornado, maybe because it's never happened, or maybe because you can't tell a difference in damage between an F-5 and F-6. Because nothing is left by both. -Code1390 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There really was discussion about the Category 6 possibility, but from outside hurricane circles, which entered hurricane circles last week. I shouldn't and won't say much about it. Just know many in the hurricane community were not a fan of it, and that it did not emminate from NHC. After all, category 5 does state there is complete destruction. What would category 6 hurricanes do? Burrow into the ground? Thegreatdr 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Salt the Earth and blot out the Sun? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Basin boundaries

Is there a northern and a southern boundary for the NHC to issue warnings in the Atlantic basin? I know that the eastern and western boundaries are the landmasses... CrazyC83 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say 0ºN is the limit for the NHC vertically...after that, it's the Southern Atlantic. -- RattleMan 05:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. If anything (by a freak of nature) enters the Arctic Ocean (it has happened exactly once), does it remain under NHC control? CrazyC83 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Faith, which I assume you were talking about, wasn't tropical in the artic circle, but if somehow something tropical entered the article circle, I would imagine it would remain the NHC's until it became extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it would then become the AHC's- The Arctic Hurricane Center- run by Santa Claus at the North pole. Hey, he has to do SOMETHING in the offseason. :P -Winter123 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If by some random chance a storm managed to track from north to south of the Equator in the Atlantic, it'd still be the responsibility of the NHC, seeing as there isn't an organization in control of forecasting tropical systems in the South Atlantic. --Patteroast 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It would need more than random chance, it would need a miracle; so far as I know, no cyclone at all has ever crossed the equator. --Golbez 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Agni got close... but anyway, my point is that since there's no organization responsible for the South Atlantic, there's probably not really a firm southern boundary either. --Patteroast 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be impossible for a cyclone to cross the equator? To my understanding a tropical cyclone requires the Coriolis force to keep it spinning, and crossing the equator would mean the force spinning in the opposite direction. I would think something like that would simply dissipate a cyclone before it could cross. Arkyan 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyclones such as Agni and Vamei are so close to the equator that the Coriolis force is negligible, and rotation in the storm is from other sources. Either way, I should have thought of a less incredible example to make my point that the South Atlantic does not lie in anyone's official area of responsiblity. --Patteroast 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

6/6/06

Wouldn't it be funny (and a little bit weird) if the first storm of the season formed on June 6? --Revolución hablar ver 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely possible based on the model I've seen. It also has a 50% chance of forming at the 6:00 advisory if it forms! How crazy would that be??

Isn't that also when some horror movie comes out? --Winter123 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Omen. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:00 UTC (2006-06-02)

I have been thinking about this too. It's possible for a TC to form on that day but what will it do? Hit Florida as a sign of things to come in the 2006 atlantic hurricane season? 216.110.254.167 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GOSH MAYBE --Golbez 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't matter. It's "really" 2012 (probably)...see Chronology of Jesus. Ardric47 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the Mayans counted based on Jesus. --Golbez 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The storm of 6/6/6 will somehow destabilize the orbit of the Moon. On the Mayan "end of the world" in 2012, the erratically orbiting Moon will collide with the Earth.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OMFG HOW DID I NOT REALIZE THAT BEFORE!?!!?!??!??!? IT'S THE END!?!?!?!?!? I'm going to go drink myself to death for the next 6 days now. -Winter123 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I really believe that thing in the Carribean will develop and strike on 6/6/06 could be a coincidence or not..that would be creepy though..then again is the wind shear going to be high that day in the gulf?--65.8.53.56 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's GFS loop still develops it, but maybe not quite so much. And I don't think shear will be an issue, as it will be semifrontal (is that a word??) in nature. It either will acquire warm-core characteristics, or it won't. My guess as of now is that it won't. Plus, NHC says that no other model develops it. -Winter123 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, no chance anymore. I'd start watching for Alberto on the 11th or 12th. -Winter123 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the current NW Caribbean system is the continuation of this disturbance, sounds like it was written off a little soon. It kept a low level circulation for about a week. I paid less attention to it on Monday myself. Thegreatdr 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject newsletter

The Tropical Cyclones WikiProject is preparing a newsletter for its members and will be spamming its member list on Sunday. It will give news on the goings-on within the project as well as a summary of the previous months cyclone activity. If you are a member of the wikiproject could you please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you are not a member of the project and would like to receive it, join the wikiproject or at least opt-in on the mailing list. Also there are votes currently open to determine the title of the newsletter and the "Member of the month". If you are a WikiProject member please participate in both these votes (note, new nominations will not be accepted now).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek alphabet

What if it runs out of both names and Greek letters?? What should it use next?? Georgia guy 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We had that discussion, and we figured it is extremely unlikely. Last season we only got six letters into the Greek alphabet. Last season was hyperactive, so a season considerably more active than last year's is very unlikely. IIRC, we would have 42 storms, which is near impossible by now. The WPAC has had one season with over 40 storms, but activity was evenly spread throughout the entire year. Given that we're already in June, that doesn't seem likely. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting 46 named storms in the Atlantic will never happen while humans live on this planet. If the Greek names were retired one by one, it is possible to eventually run out of them (This also won't happen in your lifetime, and certainly naming systems would change before then). To answer your question hypothetically though... they would call it Unnamed Tropical Storm #46 if they didn't put an emergency naming list into effect. (What a hellish year that would be.) —BazookaJoe 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If we had 46 storms in a year in the atlantic, I'm pretty sure it would be the apocalypse, because there would be about 100 in the W. Pac. -Winter123 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention this in the article if it isn't already, because I recall this being asked many times last year. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's such a far-fetched scenario, it's probably better to leave it out of the article. --Coredesat 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew Alphabet. —TimL 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Warm atlantic this year

I've been watching this anomaly map become less and less blue over the past month, and now with the most recent update, it's official: NO PART OF THE ATLANTIC IS BELOW AVARAGE! I know, I know, "SSTs do not determine season intensity."

But they sure help. -Winter123 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I see plenty of areas which are below 0 (ie below average). That includes the southern GoM and off the eastern seaboard...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Spongebob Specific-pants. The color scale isn't that clear. I guess inside the Zero lines it's BARELY below average. But still, the majority of the Atlantic is above average. And it HAS been warming up. -Winter123 20:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The SSTs will bear watching again this year. However, there has been a small cold water upwelling off of Cape Verde Islands for the last 2-3 months, and it has cooled the Atlandic somewhat. So for the sub-equatorial North Atlantic the SSTs are cooler in the eastern and central parts, but are warm is the western part and the Carribean. This points to an early storm season like we had last year, with storms forming the Carribean and becoming a landfall threat to the surrounding land masses and the US. --EMS | Talk 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The waters in the gulf have really warmed up in the past two weeks.--HurricaneRo 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane-related domain names

Slashdot currently has an interesting article dealing with some of the forms future malware will take, and it goes into the interesting fact that lots of domain names are already taken dealing with the 2006 hurricane names and containing words like "hurricane", "donation", etc,... Virtually all dot COMs are already registered that are hurricane**name** and **name**relief as well. Better keep an eye on some of these domain names, particularly some of these that might end up being added to the 'external links' section of hurricane articles, as they likely will be linkspam and scam-related. Dr. Cash 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that they've started this so quickly. I wonder if anyone got Greek letter domains .... It's understandable though. SargeAbernathy 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Lower Limit for Tropical Depressions?

At the bottom of the infobox in the upper righthand corner of this article, there is the claim that a system must have a maximum sustained windspeed of more than 25 mph in order to be considered a tropical depression. I am new to tropical meteorology, but I am surprised that I was not aware of this lower limit. Furthermore, wunderground.com did not respect this limit for Tropical Depression Two in the Eastern Pacific: it was still considered a tropical despression after its winds had died down 25 mph. Can anyone verify that there is a lower limit for tropical depressions? Ev-Man 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no lower limit. A few TD's have had winds slower than that (check out some HPC advisories for examples). --Coredesat 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I guess we can just take out the >25mph part. Ev-Man 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen updates for TD's with winds as low as 15 mph. Surface winds could be calm and it could still be a TD if it has solid convection at the upper and middle levels. CrazyC83 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is correct:

AT 11AM EDT...15Z...THE POORLY DEFINED CENTER OF TROPICAL
DEPRESSION HANNA WAS LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 33.8 N...LONGITUDE 
85.0 W ...OR ABOUT 30 MILES WEST NORTHWEST OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA.  
                              
WINDS ARE RATHER VERY LIGHT NEAR THE CENTER.  ESTIMATED MINIMUM
CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 1016 MB...30.05 INCHES.

--Coredesat 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While there is no "official" lower limit for tropical depressions, NHC tends not to start tropical depressions with maximum sustained winds below 25 mph; usually 30 or 35 mph is their lower limit; perhaps they think it does not have deep enough convection close enough to a center that may or may not be "well-defined." You can see on this link that they think the maximum sustained winds are 25-30 mph currently. When HPC continues advisories for tropical depressions and their remains when they are inland, there is no real lower limit respected. Thegreatdr 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual storm articles

Note: This discussion was transfered from the #90L.INVEST section above

I've got the sandbox article started. It should be updated, but NOT published until/if this system becomes a tropical storm. (Right now, it is speculative in nature, but that was just done to start it up) CrazyC83 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was agreed that we would do as per last year, and only give articles to storms with enough info, with articles for the rest after the TCRs come out? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:36 UTC (2006-06-10)

That led to many disputes and controversial merges though... CrazyC83 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_4#Storm_articles. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:44 UTC (2006-06-10)

I warned you all on talk:2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season (in what I am sure is now an archived discussion) that whatever you did for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season would be a precedent for this article. My feeling is that the use of that format is now a done deal. That is what you all are aiming to produce now for this article.

More to the point, if you are going to do individual storm articles, then they are best created immediately. During and immediately after the event is when the most interest will exist, and when the most and most relevant data has the best chance of being placed into that article. So "strike while the iron is hot" and do have the Tropical Storm Alberto (2006) article present as soon as the storm exists. --EMS | Talk 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am personally against having the articles already (though definetly eventually for all storms), though you're exactly right. There's no sense in avoiding the inevitable, so as soon as it's named, go for it. Of course, the article will need to be redone with the post-season stuff, but current information shouldn't be a problem, based on its location. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I'd rather not have a stub on say Tropical Storm Beryl (2006) until the end of the season and we can fill it up with the TCR. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:48 UTC (2006-06-10)

We don't have to wait for the TCR. You could link to the Tropical Weather Outlooks for the storm history prior to forming, and the discussions for its history. If Beryl was a fish storm, then we could list the track predictions (like if it was predicted to become a hurricane, but didn't). It won't be the best of articles, but it doesn't have to be the worst. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

<--

Hmm, I don't really think the existence of the article hurts anything (after the TCR, one could always write from scratch if the existing article is that bad), so I support having the article around to collect information while the storm exists. --AySz88 ^-^ 03:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I support starting the article. There is enough information for just about any storm, especially this potential-Alberto-to-be since it will more than likely affect land somehow. --tomf688 (talk - email) 04:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too. It also eliminates the controversial merges and recreations, plus the judgements calls that are always heated. CrazyC83 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My experience from last year is that by the time the storm is over, we pretty much know what is going to be in the TCR. Even the two cases where the TCR changed the status of a storm (Cindy going from a strong tropical storm to a hurricane and Emily going from category 4 to categoy 5) were not unexpected. Also, we can always place a note in the article or the info boxes that the overall statistics are prelimimary and pending the release of the TCR. I repeat: For various details on the extent of damage and related events, it is often best to document them at the time, and that means having the article available and ready to receive them. --EMS | Talk 04:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing I fear with storm articles is getting them started prematurely. There isn't really any harm to having fishspinner articles, but I'm inclined to say wait until it dissipates. The main reason is, the formula which was used to make the 2005 fishspinners a reasonable quality makes use of the discussions, but in a way which NEEDS to know what the storm actually did, to know how the NHC was good or bad at its forecasting. And one thing, the articles are likely to be completely rewritten after the TCR (not just minor changes like Cindys upgrade), if you are not prepared to do that please do not write the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For fish storms, yea, you should wait until its done. In this case, though, I can see the justification for getting it started relatively soon after it is named. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this business of needing to rewrite the articles after the TCR coems out is a red herring. The 2005 articles provide a set of formats that we can immediately edit towards. That is not to say that there will not be revisions after the TCR comes out, but while the TCR is an important resource for the related artcle, it is far from the only one. In fact, most of the track/strength/impact data will already be known before the TCR comes out. As I see it, enforcing the appropriate protocols for the articles immediately will make the TCR edits a breeze. --EMS | Talk 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could be so optimistic, but from my experience I doubt we will be so lucky. The articles on minor storms were not updated properly in light of the TCR until fairly recently (when I did it), just minor tweaks like the windspeed changes. Now that is partly because we didn't have the format concept we have now, but still. The key thing is that it is not possible to make a critique of the forecasting until you know what the storm actually does, and that is a key component of the fishspinner storm histories. That means my suggestion here is make the article when the storm is important or after it dissipates; handle the active fishspinners in the season article. I mean does it really kill us to wait a few days?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought at least some of the content back, because if something was agreed to, it was that there was no need to create subarticles when the season article can fit more text. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the TD1 info?

The section devoted to it has nothing -- there should be information there, though. I will tag it for expansion soon. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, it just formed! There's no info out yet ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Redundant timelines

Should there really be a timeline in this article if there is a separate timeline article? (Sobesurfski 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

The timeline article (which shouldn't have been made) is basically an archive of the timeline. The timeline in the season article is for recent weeks. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the season progresses, the timeline that appears on the front page will be condensed to only the previous fews weeks for length issues. The entire length of the timeline will be at Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. See the 2005 season timeline article to see how long this baby could get. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WP is NOT a Crystal Ball

I'm reading the section on TS. Alberto and I am saddenned that so many wiki users have allowed the Crystal Ball that is this section to remain on this page. Terms like the following do not reflect an encyclopedic text: It is expected to, has the potential to, could be affected. Where's the disagreement on the talk page? Why has no one else seen that this defies WP protocol? Please, someone clean up this section. It is horribly improper for WP. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with a section that is based on an official weather forecast? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would prefixing everything with "NHC forecasters say...." etc. make it better? --AySz88 \^-^ 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"The storm is forecast..."? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually he is right partially. There is a substantial amount of crystal balling in there. If the NHC says A or B could happen (and officially goes with A), to say "I think B" is crystal balling. Hopefully people will calm down for Beryl, but somehow I doubt it. I think removing the AoI page under WP:NOT could be justified though...--Nilfanion (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually agreeing on that one. The amount of crystalballing in these pages defies logic. If people want to predict a storm, they should do it elsewhere. I think that last season's hurricane season made everyone interested in being the next NHC forecasters. I think there are a lot of things I'd do differently if I had sole control of this article and talk pages. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the forecast should be block quoted in some fashion -- meconlen

Isn't this normally how we always do the sections for storms when they are in a situation like this? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was (I don't remember there ever being such speculatory terminology on the article page) it doesn't jive with WP Policy. Everyone here should know better. If it continues, removal of text violating WP:NOT is completely acceptable. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystal-balling or not, from what I can tell, no one seems to mind (and if they do, they don't seem to do anything about it). Crystal-balling is inevitable when discussing things like this. --Coredesat 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any tropical weather resource giving a full litany on where a storm has been without saying where the storm is going. Keeping in mind that we're only saying what's forecast to happen — not saying that it's going to happen — I don't think that this type of alledged crystal balling is a problem. —BazookaJoe 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Coredesat, the only reason I hadn't removed all traces when I first saw it is that someone would have accused me of blanking information. Regardless, even if I stand alone, I still oppose large amounts of forecast data. At one point it seemed like a verbatum copy of the NHC Discussion Page. As for Bazooka, I don't mind the article saying where it might go, but when there's more lines on what the storm could do than what it did (as it was earlier today), that's when I really say there's a problem. Everyone needs to keep in mind that WP may not be the place for long, specific predictions, even if the NHC is a reference. Every storm is unpredictable, and while some information on a general direction of motion (such as "the storm is moving NNW at 8mph toward Florida") is fine, other information, like "the storm is forecast to make a turn to the NE and strike the Northern peninsula" is too specific and detailed and can simply misinform readers (and is crystalballing). - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "...when there's more lines on what the storm could do than what it did (as it was earlier today), that's when I really say there's a problem."

Oh, I totally understand what you're saying, then. —BazookaJoe 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a reasonable line. However, I join others in noting that it is fine to report on other people's "crystal balling". However, trivial and/or excessive details need not be reported. ("Katrina is moving to the north northwest and is forecast to make landfall near New Orleans" is OK. "... Massive flooding of the city may result. The storm should then head north and affect much of Louisiana and Mississippi. ..." is content that is getting out of hand. However, "Officials in Lousiana and Mississippi are concerned about the potential impact of this storm" is OK. --EMS | Talk 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused - are we talking about this talk page or the "Current storm information" section in the article? --AySz88 \^-^ 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At first it was a little of both, but the latter section is on the main article page. - Jake - Bladeswin - 207.30.145.6 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Early Archival of Alberto

What's with the short article on the main page? It's very short...very...very short... The main article is not the uber abridged version of the season, it's supposed to actually tell stuff. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes were made so that the text on the season article would be distinguished from the storm article. --Coredesat 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful with that. We don't want 2006AHS's entry on Alberto to look like this... Make sure you keep a decent amount in the season article on Alberto like the storms in 2004 or the 2005 list.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right Nilfanion. Remember Coredesat, and all those who think likewise, the Tropical Cyclones are the article. Without the storms, there's no point in making this article. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Button bar

Do we really need {{2006 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} now? Tito xd^(?!?) 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt. In a few weeks this won't matter anyways, since there will have been several storms already. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have several choice words for the creation of the button bar at this time that civility will not allow me to express. --Golbez 00:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it, but it doesn't hurt to have it in existence, especially if we will need it later on. Despite my dislike towards the button bars, every storm will likely have an article this season, so no harm in making one. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm reminded about it, would it be less objectionable to use the format of {{ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}} for the button bars? --AySz88 \^-^ 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the button bar. The "ToC" looks rougher to me than the button bar, and does not blend so well with the page. —Cuivi é nen 03:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the button bar because of its ease of use. Hovering over each button provides a short description. Plus, personally, I think it has a nice design, especially for when the season becomes more active. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem?? -Winter123 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting storm names

**2006 storm names**
Alberto (active)	Helene (unused)	Oscar (unused)
Beryl (unused)	Isaac (unused)	Patty (unused)
Chris (unused)	Joyce (unused)	Rafael (unused)
Debby (unused)	Kirk (unused)	Sandy (unused)
Ernesto (unused)	Leslie (unused)	Tony (unused)
Florence (unused)	Michael (unused)	Valerie (unused)
Gordon (unused)	Nadine (unused)	William (unused)

I believe we should change the three-column list to the table on the right since aligning the names on the right is a more efficient use of space. Basically, the current layout is widely spaced out on a high resolution and looks amateurish. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it looks better, but at the same time, it would mean changing every single article with named storms in Category:Tropical cyclones by season... Tito xd^(?!?) 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, two points here. First, it isn't entirely necessary that every article be changed to conform. Second, couldn't a bot accomplish this? All I changed were a few things in the header, and a few words in the text (from "the names on the list below" to "the names to the right", i.e.). Just a thought. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is fine here, but it somehow needs to be moved to the right a bit. In my browser, it's a bit squashed against all the text. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a 1em margin around it, so crowding of text should be fixed now. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the format a bit to remove the table borders. —Cuivi é nen 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Text still crowds around table. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a nice idea, potentially making better use of space that the current format does. With regards to previous pages, I would not worry about it too much at the moment. In the short run, we need to try this out and see hiw people like it (but I think that they will). Beyond that, we may want to update the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page to conform, but I would leave prior pages alone pending either he creation of an appropriate bot or a conversion project for the older storm seasons. --EMS | Talk 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about putting it on the right side of the page at the top? bob rulz 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We are putting it where the names are now. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to throw it into the article if there are no reasonable objections. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks bad on the right, maybe it should be on the left?. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 04:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks fine on the right. The left would be absolutely horrendous. bob rulz 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Preseason forecasts box's records

I reverted HurricaneCraze32's edits linking the 0 in the record low number of major hurricanes in the forecasts box on the grounds that more recent seasons (1994, 1972) also have zero major hurricanes. This brings up a situation with several possible courses of action. In that case, when a record is shared by more than one season, in the box should we:

Link to the most recent season (1994 in this case) to share that record;
Have no link for that number (like it was after I reverted it);
Have no links but the word several after it to indicate that more than one season holds that record;
Create a new section in the seasons list for seasonal (in)activity records, and link the records in the seasonal forecasts box to the section in the seasons list; or
Do something different that I haven't thought of.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alberto cleanup

I'm going to do some cleanup on the description of Alberto. Margie 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. This is how it looked after my edit (thanks to my many met friends for various insights). Hoping to provide a blend of detailed information and more general obs, in a way that is readable for the general public, but interesting to the armchair tourist:

...TD-One had a large stable low level circulation (LLC). Southwesterly shear caused most of the convection to be displaced to the northeastern half of the storm. That, and a flat pressure gradient over the center, indicated a hybrid tropical cyclone (some subtropical characteristics). Westward movement continued to 88.1W, before a turn and ENEward movement began, and the resulting longer period of time over water provided enough time for strengthening just short of Category 1 hurricane intensity, before landfall in Florida. Once eastward movement began the resulting reduced shear allowed enough strengthening and organization to occur for TD-One to become Tropical Storm Alberto on the morning of June 11. Passing over the warm deep water of the Loop Current, and upper level divergence from an approaching trough, allowed a buildup of convection to occur. Alberto continued to organize overnight, with the center reforming on Monday morning to the northeast, near the area of deep convection. Recon found a warm core environment at this time. The storm strengthened to 70mph, but only to weaken again as the convection was peeled away, as the trough continued to move towards the tropical storm, and dry air that had initially cut into the convection close to the center, was pulled into the entire exposed LLC. Alberto continued to fire off some limited shallow convection to the north, and even developed a partial eyewall for a short time, before making landfall midday on June 13 about 50 miles (85 km) southeast of Tallahassee, Florida. Alberto brought a surge of five feet to the Big Bend area of the Florida coastline, flooding areas of Cedar Key and Crystal River. Even some time after landfall, the LLC remained remarkably well-organized, and Alberto continued to have winds of tropical storm force. ...

Margie 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, but there's a bit too MUCH info now. Also, please insert wikilinks, and spell out all abbreviations. Although you cleaned up the description, your edit needs cleanup. IMHO, there is too much inconsistency between this and other descriptions. I would rather add all of this info to the main storm article. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...didn't realize there was a separate article just on Alberto. Can you take care of the cleanup? I don't have too many wiki-skills. Thanks much, Margie 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a look. However, I'm going to revert it for now until I get everything organized. Thanks for all the additional details! I'm going to add most of it to the main article. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, there's something I just realized I should have explained. I wanted to clean up the information because some of it is wrong; my goal wasn't really to provide additional detail. Margie 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image in lead box

I've removed the image in the lead box. I believe we established a precedent last season to keep that free of images until a track map of the season is available. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct you are. I reverted what that guy did before, but he put it back up. íslenska hurikein #12_(samtal) 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you lead me to that discussion, please. It's a hurricane page, so there should be something attrative on the top of it. You can't just leave an infobox picture-less like that. It looks so much better with a picture on the top of it. → JARED ^(t) 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well what picture should it be a picture of? The current sheared mess the atlantic is right now? :) TimL 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just suggested that it be of something of importance currently happening in the Atlantic. For instance, I put an image of Alberto because it was the first storm. Maybe if Beryl comes along, she'd (he'd?) have her (his?) picture up there. I think that leaving it blank, however, with no eye-catching color, etc. is wasteful of the space there is to offer. → JARED ^(t) 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be redundant as {{infobox hurricane small}} makes use of images of the storms. NSLE 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Only of one image, though. Even then, you can get rid of the one below. Whatever. → JARED ^(t) 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. NSLE 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care. I am just trying to get you guys to see my point; I see yours. → JARED ^(t) 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)