Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 12

message: ''
 --Ajm81 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chris TCR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Oh, didn't realize they weren't updated. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official ACE source 

message: --Ajm81 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Storm reports have been updated to September 30th, 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What storm reports? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storm event reports. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCDC update 

message: Finally! Now we just need the track maps. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll upload it if someone hasn't already done that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh shitaki. I just loaded it on Wikipedia. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The PNG file has some problems. Can you upload it as a gif? Good kitty 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did...unless someone's replaced it in the past 20 minutes. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Track Map

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article for the unnamed storm 

message: 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:
#Is a season-crosser part of the season in which it formed?
#Is a season-crosser part of the season in which it dissipated?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zeta referencing 

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

text: That is not how ref tags work! Please learn how to use them beforee using them. Using "" does zilch. – Chacor 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 "". 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 ? – Chacor 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Looks like NO names retired 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ? – Chacor 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Length of section

message: 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)
replies: text: Wrong place, dude. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Umm DOH... would help if i was on 2007? XD--Nilfanion (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The talk pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Interesting error. Excellent find.Mitchcontribs 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Hi. Um, problem, still not fixed yet. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracks map error