Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 6

Importance of this page to the World Wide Web/Internet

Soapbox moment: I think it's worth stepping back for a minute to realize how important wikipedia is becoming to the internet/people in general nowadays. There has been some very good press lately concerning this open source project, and it is deserved. A number of hard-working people are maintaining these pages, and they should be commended for doing this on their own time, for no other reason than to help spread knowledge far and wide. This is an idea a number of people in government service have embraced as well, including myself. Because of the tropical cyclone project specifically, there has been a large increase in the use of our tropical cyclone rainfall page/climatology that I maintain for our purposes at work, which in the old days would have been printed out, bound, and left to collect dust in our office. Now, anyone can access this information, and it can be updated at will. With printed media, any kind of update took a concerted effort and a bit of time. As someone who remembers well what life without the internet was like (for me, before 1993), it is amazing to see how quickly all this information can be tapped by anyone with only a few clicks/keystrokes. This was the promise we all hoped for back then in the early days, and technology (this time) has not let us down. Thegreatdr 19:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you ever introduced yourself, I missed it. It's great to have someone from the HPC editing here, welcome aboard. :) --Golbez 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I feel that it's an honor to be working at Wikipedia alongside such prominent specialists (at least to those of us who follow these things!). Thank you for volunteering, too, and happy editing! :) --AySz88\^-^ 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of U.S. government pages in general get more attention because of Wikipedia that would normally go unnoticed. I'm sure the Navy Hurricane site or even the NHC itself get a noticeable amount of traffic from Wikipedia links. I would be interested to see their referral statistics. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very happy to hear, Thegreatdr. Bravo, Wikipedians. I'm proud of us. —BazookaJoe 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I must say it's great to have you here, David (or Mr. Ross or whatever you want to be called ;)), and you're exactly right. It's been very cool to see the development of the electronic age through my life, especially Wikipedia recently. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to have you on Wikipedia, discussing the same things we are. I agree, technology has done millions, if not the billions of people around the world, proud. Double Dash 20:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia iss deh shizzit!!1 -Winter123 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Invest?

I don't get it. All you guys are putting these "INVEST" things up top...what are you talking about? What's an INVEST? Are you guys just posting the small tropical developments up on the talk page. I don't care, but it's kind of strange for someone who has no idea what you're doing. ☻ → JARED ^(t)  13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An INVEST is a system for potential development, monitored by the NHC and the Naval Research Lab. NSLE 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They come from this site, by the way: [1] —BazookaJoe 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

INVEST is the term used by the Navy to describe potential tropical cyclone formations. There are several different types of storm declarations used. Wikipedians have their own overused declaration of possible development called an AOI or Area of Interest. In previous years this meant that a user thought an area of convection had a chance of formation, but this year it has become overused and as such relegated to the appropriate subpage in the Talk section. Consequences of last years active season I guess. Invests are the official 'this may become something' title given to an area of convection. These, as per convention, are listed at the top of the Talk page listed under the week of the month they formed. In the section and discussion that ensues, many different strands of conversation occur, from talk about chances of survival to the potential impact on land and sometimes the occasional upgrade to Tropical Depression. As for not knowing what we're doing? That's okay, it took me most of the 2004 season to figure it out. Ever since, I've had a blast here! - Bladeswin posting as 207.30.145.6 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 storm names

Recently the "2006 storm names" section was recently renamed as "Storm names". I have no problem with this rename; in fact I have considered doing such a rename before. The problem is that this section is named "<Year> storm names" in every other seasonal article - so if we are going to rename it the rename needs to be done into every article to keep them consistent. See for instance 1950 Atlantic hurricane season, 1972 Pacific typhoon season, 2001 Pacific hurricane season. The only exception to the current rule (besides this article) may be the Southern Hemisphere seasons - see 2002-03 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. — jdorje (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a rename in all the Northern hemisphere seasons, its not that many articles. What is done in this article makes sense "2006" is unneeded in "2006 Storm names", it is the "2006 Atlantic hurricane season" after all… The southern hemisphere has the problem that there are many naming lists. If and when the SH is split up like is proposed then the same structure should be adopted there.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Atlantic Storm Articles

I think/or propose that the 2006 Atlanitc hurricane season should have a seperate article for its stroms just as 2005 did. Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We already had the discussion, located here and here. In my personal opinion, only storms that have a threat to land should have articles operationally, and wait until the storm is over for fish storms. The storm history can use archived Tropical Weather Outlooks and discussions, while impact can rely on news reports and preliminary storm reports from NWS offices. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And having a "List of" article is entirely dependent on the activity of the season. If it ends up like 2004, then there's no point to it. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I still disagree with what was done to the 2005 article, as length is no reason to change the structure of an article...but I won't get into that same old discussion again. bob rulz 09:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, length is a reason to change the structure of an article. See WP:SIZE. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated current information

Sorry if this has been dicusssed during the close season, but why have we adopted a system where the current data is shown in an infobox, and the exactly the same data again right next to it in the main text? Isn't this sort of contrary to normal Wikipedia practice? The inevitable consequence is they get out of step, as I see Chris just has...--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While I don't really know anything about Wikipedia conventions regarding this (I'll take your word for it), I think it's really annoying to have an infobox that takes up half the page that repeats the same information that's seen in the "current storm information" section. bob rulz 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The current storm information should include as much as possible that isn't in the infobox - the reach of TS/Hurricane strength winds, etc, which are all mentioned in NHC public advisories. Chacor 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NRL Monterey Marine Meteorology Division

• http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html

In case you don't know, this is the page a lot of people use. They are usually first to do the upgrades. However, they do nothing on their own. All of the maps they use are based on either NHC data or JTWC data. When regarding upgrading systems, I'm fairly sure they base it on model data, seeing as their upgrades occur at the same time as the models come out. So, what should we do about them? The models, and thus NRL, has been changed last minute in the past, like Pilar/16E last year in the EPAC. Personally, I think they are official, and once the models come out we should be able to use that data in the articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I have to disagree. I don't consider them official. -- WmE 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The NRL is a great source of imagery and gives very strong indicators as to what is going to happen. However it isn't official so we cannot use it like as an in-article-source.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The NHC is the official RSMC, so nothing is official until they say so. Chacor 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But the NRL uses the model data, which is official (the wind speed at least), isn't it? --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As we saw with Pilar/TD16-E last year, it's not fully believable. I don't object using NRL to update talk pages (except calling them "Tropical Storm Chris" when it's still TD3 from the NHC, rather I won't object to "03L.CHRIS"), but not articles. Chacor 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yea, but Pilar is a very rare occurrence, and hasn't been repeated before or after then. What about saying something like this on the articles, "Computer models upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Chris at 20Z on August 1"? Wikipedia is about all of the information, and some people might not know of NRL or the models. It would be very informative, especially for such a well-known website, to have such upgrades before the NHC does, even if it says something like the above. If, by chance, the models are wrong, then we could say, "Computer models upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Chris at 20Z on August 1, though it was not until 9 hours later that the National Hurricane Center officially upgraded the system" or "... on August 1, though the National Hurricane Center retained the system as a tropical depression". Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not use the exact term "upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Chris". This would be the NHC's job to officially do so. Perhaps a minor mention, like "computer models noted the system as a tropical storm, which was confirmed X hours later by the NHC when it upgraded the system to Tropical Storm Chris". That's a bit wordy, however. Chacor 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only time models should be mentioned is before the NHC upgrades it. Once they upgrade it, you can just remove the models mention. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable doing this. The key here is that computer models are not the only indications of a storm's intensity; besides, the links would quickly expire, making the page almost unreferenceable. Additionally, if the storm prediction models put a depression as a tropical storm, the NHC will most likely mention it in their forecast discussions, which don't disappear every ten minutes. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • However, the computer models come out two hours earlier than the NHC discussions. The links for the models would only be temporary until the NHC officially changes it, that's what I'm saying. Seeing as how many people visit Wikipedia, it couldn't hurt to give the model info to people looking here at those two hours before the NHC advisory... Hurricanehink (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if they use the models for certain, we can make a link, like this:
      • The Naval Research Lab's latest model run on Tropical Storm Chris (unofficial)
    • Titoxd^(?!?) 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know for sure, though. There's very strong evidence, though, based on that NRL also has Pilar in 2005. Also, do you think there should be text describing changes, if any? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the NRL disclaimer? "The tropical cyclone forecasts displayed here are the latest forecasts received at NRL, and may or may not be the most current forecasts available from the operational centers. NRL collects these forecasts for ATCF project development, and is not responsible for their use in the forecasting of tropical cyclones. Concerned customers should confirm these forecasts with official sources ."--Nilfanion (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I feel like a complete idiot. OK, I suppose that settles it, and sorry about the waste of time. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a great site- They are good at spotting potential storms. -Winter123 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They're pretty good at it too. Many times, they will have a storm correctly updated before the advisory is even out. They have outstanding imagery. They have alot of sophisticated images that a seasoned meteorologist could get lots of information out of. My tropical cyclone imagery archive is healthily stocked with them. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NOAA August update & Gray-Klotzbach forecast

Just posting a note here that the August update of NOAA's tropical cyclone forecast comes out on August 8th. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And on that note, Dr. Gray and Dr. Klotzbach have released their updated forecast to a Florida news station. They've lowered their numbers (13 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 3 major). It will be officially published tomorrow. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, it's 13 for just the rest of the season, not including the 2 already, which makes a total of 15. —AySz88\^-^ 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What period does the forecast cover exactly? Is Chris included implicitly like Beryl (making the total 16 - that a big drop of 1) or is it the first of the 13?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is 15. The official forecast from the CSU is here. They've dropped the TS/H/IH predictions by two across the board.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NOAA August outlook

The NOAA's August mid-season outlook is now out. No major changes from the start; "NOAA scientists warn this year's relatively quiet start is not an indication of what the remainder of the season has in store." Chacor 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing the point?

Am I missing something here. I thought Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season is supposed to be about 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and not the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Those two entities are different, aren't they?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, though it's best to keep an eye on 91L as it could become TD4 very soon. Pobbie Rarr 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Nilfanion. However, I don't see a problem with discussing Invests, if only because it signifies a possible move by the NHC, and we publish moves by the NHC. However, the obsession with clouds exiting Africa with no official designation is way too much. I would be happy to never see the term "AoI" on this page again. --Golbez 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, now I see what you meant in the other discussion: I thought by AOI you simply meant Invest. And yeah, just AOIs on their own should not be discussed. Pobbie Rarr 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nilfanion. It's another semantic debate. To take the other side for a moment, it appears that the inclusion of preseason predictions on the main page have led to predictions being posted on the discussion page. Perhaps the way of dealing with this issue would be to remove the preseason predictions from the main article at some point. I believe that if predictions aren't in the main article, they wouldn't be on the discussion page since predictions would no longer be relevant to the article's content. A prediction page could include all predictions, both "officially" made forecasts, and forecasts made by the users on this page and be used like a bulletin board system, or weblog/blog. Each user could have their own section on the prediction page when they feel they need to air out an opinion on a tropical cyclone forecast.

Should all hurricane-related articles be treated like a current event, or an encyclopedia entry? If the article is a current event, it should probably be treated like a current event which may include predictions. If it is in the past, perhaps all predictions in the main article should be removed and thrown on the prediction page since they are no longer relevent, with all predictions in the discussion page being removed once the event is over and thrown onto the prediction page as well (in this case, January 1, 2007.) Thegreatdr 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They should be encyclopedic current event articles. Sourced predictions should be just fine, assuming the source is relevant. I'd say that the predictions could even be carried on post-storm, if they add to the article.

Regarding irrelevant predictions on the talk page, it is a current event article and it's futile to try to eliminate speculation and cruft. Wikipedia editors come from all kinds of places. I kinda like it that way. --Elliskev 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree serious predictions by meteorologists are fine for the article. It also is impossible to eliminate predictions cruft from this kind of article, anyone passing through could say "is this going to be the next big one?". However, I feel it has gotten out of hand, if we move the predictions to a WikiProject subpage thats probably a fair solution for all, and will mean this page will stay useable.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about comparisons? I see a lot of that here, too. "This is looking just like <Insert pet storm name here>..." type stuff. No matter what you do, you're going to get excited people making bold and exciting statements. Might it be better to just POLITELY point out that we all should "just wait and see"? Creating a special place just kinda seems like an endorsement. --Elliskev 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The problem is it has got so excessive that some good editors have been driven away from this page by it. Moving it to somewhere else is not an endorsement of it, but allows those who want to discuss the storms to do so (it is sometimes genuinely informative) and in such a way it does not disrupt this talk page (90KB of discussion on TS Chris counts as that IMO).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sounds good. I do enjoy the outrageous predictions. 'THIS IS GONNA BE THE FIRST CAT6 JUST WAIT AND SEE WHENIT GETS IN THE GULF!!@! --Elliskev 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those people are fun to make fun of...oh wait, I shouldn't have said that. Bad Eric! [slap] ;) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year?

If you're going by maximum sustained windspeed, it's Alberto - 70mph, 995mb. But if we're going by minimum pressure, it's actually Zeta with 994mb... --SomethingFunny 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta's technically 2005, though. guitarhero777777 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year, Cyclone Monica...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was technically 'the previous year' too, if we're going purely by the official seasons. I mean, we ticked over the official season for the southern hemisphere on July 1. How dare you inflict northern hegemony upon them! Sheesh, it doesn't matter. Hurricane Frances was, for a short time, the strongest storm of September 2004 - even though *gasp* it formed IN AUGUST! Imagine that. (I'm not yelling at you, Nilf.) --Golbez 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that Zeta was a late 2005 season storm and not an early 2006 season one. Therefore, Alberto takes the honours so far. Pobbie Rarr 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year 2006 is Monica. I don't think we're going by technical seasons, but the year. If Zeta hit its peak in 2006, I'll give it that as the srongest storm of the Atlantic in 2006. But since it formed in 2005, I cant give it the "award for strongest storm of the 2006 season." that still goes to Alberto. But I can still give Zeta the stongest Atlantic storm of 2006 if it hit its peak in 2006. guitarhero777777 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...And if you want to go by natural cycles without human-made demarcations such as the Gregorian calendar, the new Atlantic season begins when it bottoms out in March. —BazookaJoe 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is, do we go by mph or mbar? Some seasons in the past put both, so why don't we do that? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be by pressure. --Holderca1 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pressure always takes precedence. Pobbie Rarr 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, use pressure unless it is unavailable, in which case use windspeed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitarhero, just FYI, Zeta reached its peak intensity of 55 kts, 994 millibars at 1800 UTC January 1, 2006. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So if Zeta reached her peak intensity of 994mb on January 1, 2006...doesn't that mean that Zeta should be listed as the strongest storm thus far of 2006? I'm going to make the edit now...it's mostly a moot point since Ernesto seems likely to move to the top spot within a few days.--SomethingFunny 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Zeta was a 2005 storm. --Holderca1 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We already had this arguement. Zeta was a 2005 storm that occurred in the 2006 storm season. Thus, any records it causes in 2006 will be part of 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not our argument to make, otherwise that is original research. --Holderca1 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. Zeta was in 2006, simply put. That's a fact you can't ignore. Here is the discussion that, based on consensus, Zeta was part of the 2006 season. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite the source? --Holderca1 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For what? Zeta was in 2006, you can see that in the TCR. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That says Zeta was part of the '06 season. I didn't see that it said that in the report, maybe I missed it. --Holderca1 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, we have no explicit source saying it either way. The reason why there was a consensus that Zeta's records in 2006 belong for the 2006 season is because a) it was in 2006, b) the tropical cyclone season lasts from January 1 through December 31. The evidence for B is the fact that Tropical Storm Ana in 2003, despite forming in April, as part of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. Similarly, there was a storm in February '52, January '78, and March of '08, all presumably part of their respective seasons. Holderca1, in regard to what Golbez said, what if Frances in 04, which formed in August, reached its peak intensity in September, and no other storms surpassed it? Wouldn't Frances, by definition, be the strongest storm in September? Just push the date a few months later and you have the same situation. Frances would have been the strongest in January, and, until another storm surpassed it, the strongest storm in the following year. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Frances does not apply here, I am not arguing that Zeta wasn't the strongest storm of 2006(calendar year), I am arguing that it is the strongest storm of the 2006 season (which is the title of this article). It seems highly unlikely now, but say this season was just as active as last season and we arrived to the name Zeta again, according to your logic, that would give us two Zetas in the 2006 season. --Holderca1 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the pre-season examples? The hurricane season goes from January 1 to December 31. Thus, Zeta was part of the 2006 season, and yes, hypothetically, there could be two Zetas in the same seasons. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All of those formed in the same calendar year, the NHC even stated that the 2005 season didn't conclude until January 6, 2006. --Holderca1 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta occurred in 2006. We're talking about the strongest storm of 2006, not necessarily the strongest storm of 2006 that formed in the 2006 season. bob rulz 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But the title of this article is 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, not Atlantic hurricanes of 2006. --Holderca1 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but Zeta did occur during the 2006 season. It just so happened to have formed in the 2005 season. bob rulz 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe according to some Wikipedia contributors, but the NHC never says this. --Holderca1 21:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seasons can technically overlap. True, the NHC never said this...so I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I honestly don't care either way, since this discussion has a 99.9% chance of being rendered moot by the end of the season anyway. bob rulz 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, has anyone contacted the NHC on their opinion? --Holderca1 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They're too busy this time of year. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta ceased to exist on January 6th, the discussion on where Zeta belongs has been going on since then. The NHC was hardly busy January through May. --Holderca1 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just found this, according to this, the NHC does not include Zeta in the 2006 season. From the final discussion on Zeta: "SO... UNTIL THE 2006 SEASON BEGINS... UNLESS ZETA SOMEHOW MAKES AN UNLIKELY MIRACLE COMEBACK... THIS IS THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER SIGNING OFF FOR 2005... FINALLY." --Holderca1 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta formed in 2005, used a name from a 2005 list and is included in NHCs annual reports for 2005. I think that makes it part of the 2005 season, just like Alice was part of the 1954 season. What matters is when the storm formed, not when it reached peak intensity. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. Since it uses the name Zeta, it designates it as part of the 2005 season. If it were indeed part of the 2006 season, it would have been Alberto. Regardless of when it dissipated, it remains that the storm is part of the 2005 season, and Alberto is the strongest storm of the 2006 season so far. --EHoffman 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This will probably be a moot discussion as chances are there will by a cyclone this season with pressure below 994mbar. Reub2000 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now is clearly the time to submit Zeta as one of the silliest (dare I say stupidest?) debates to ever exist on Wikipedia. What's that link again? The Zeta debate just won't end...not today, not ever. Official dates for starting and ending of a hurricane season are meaningless. Severe weather seasons have general starting and ending times. Does this cause grief among storm chasers if a severe weather event along the Gulf coast crosses January 1? Um, no. And there are databases kept for severe weather, with events separated by month. This means the last event of any month is 11:59 pm on the 28, 29, 30, or 31 (depending on the month and leap year), and the first event occurs at midnight on the 1st.

If NHC changed the season starting date in 2007 to say, May 15 instead of June 1, I will not be one of the people who will plow through every season article and make the change to the mystical beginning date of every hurricane season article. In my opinion, the "official" beginning and ending date should not be included in any of the hurricane season articles. The beginning of any season is when the first depression forms and the ending date is when the last system becomes extratropical or dissipates. If NHC did tropical weather outlooks every day of the year, I bet the people on the "official season" side of the debate would have less of a leg to stand on. They do not, however, since they have seasonal articles to write up, have numerous conferences to attend, and have yet to question why the TWO is only issued from June 1 to November 30, even when a system or disturbance exists outside this date window. Since the pages are ordered by year, if you are going to say a certain cyclone is the strongest or weakest in, say, 2006, you count any storm in 2006, regardless of when it formed. Anything else fails common sense. Then again, common sense sometimes fails meteorologists, including myself. Maybe you all really are meteorologists, and some of you don't realize it yet. Welcome to the dysfunctional club. Thegreatdr 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LAME. --Golbez 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thegreatdr, that's the most sensical (is that even a word?) post I've read in a long time. I too think it's overly excessive to mention the "official" start and end dates to every single hurricane season article. bob rulz 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just be sure that when this section is archived (hopefully soon, as the point will be moot in several hours when Ernesto breaks 993), it is archived to the Zeta page, so people redirected from WP:LAME will get to see the whole measure of lunacy. Why can't storms be well-behaved (or wikipedians for that matter)? Runningonbrains 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Zeta has brought out the epitome of WP:LAME. --Elliskev 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My first thought about this was could you all please shut up about Zeta, lol. Then I decided, what the heck, so I jumped in... Hinker, I hate to disagreed with you but you always educate me when I do, hence Ivan, I really think this should be included in the 2005 season because it was before the spring convention deal that announces the retired names. I believe that that is the line that you draw when refering to seasons. Of course this is my opinion, so aren't you glad I put it in the right place this time :)--StormChaser666 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)