Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Misc

Klotzbach/Gray - offtopic

All off-topic archived. Chacor 15:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've returned it. This discussion is still ongoing, and I find it very disrespectful for you to just pretend like it doesn't exist and archive it. I consider it vandalism. bob rulz 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like myself and the people I discussed with and agreed to me archiving it think it's vandalism for you to return it against consensus? Chacor 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed where? If we're going to talk about what needs to be archived on the page, discuss it on this talk page, not on your talk pages. bob rulz 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

At the official WPTC IRC channel. Chacor 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not everybody knows about those. But whatever, go ahead and archive it. I don't give a damn anymore. I just thought that it was against Wikipedia convention to archive ongoing discussions, and for somebody who's so uptight about the rules I'm surprised they would be violated like this. bob rulz 01:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV. Do not accuse me of violating WP policy when I have not done so. Chacor 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'm sorry, I overreacted. I'm just amazed that such a "decision" was undertaken without consulting the talk page. Not everybody knows about the IRC channels; I had never heard of them until you mentioned it, and I personally find it rude and impolite that anybody would agree to archive an ongiong discussion on the talk page without first bringing it up on the talk page of that article. I don't know all of the Wikipedia conventions and policies regarding this, but I do remember specific things about talk pages that talks about how it is considered impolite to do this, especially since one of the primary person you are arguing with (me), was not even involved in this discussion at all, and I felt insulted that you would archive that discussion without even involving me in this "agreement" at all.

Also, User:Nilfanion actually removed comments before ("unverifiable comments" I believe he called it), and I consider that vandalism. bob rulz 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I just point out that per WP:VAND, good faith edits are never vandalism. Those were made in good faith, with agreement (again) in the IRC channel. Everyone involved with WPTC should start getting more active in there, as it's official and as it seems, more and more major decisions will be made there. Chacor 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick addition: This page does fall under WPTC too, so I do believe it's best everyone start getting involved there. Chacor 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't convince me. First off, what people should and shouldn't do is not your decision to make. I can be just as involved in this project as I want to be. Secondly, I would have been perfectly willing to join in the discussion there if I would have been informed that it was going to be discussed outside of this talk page. Third, you did not make any mention to me why you were deleting it. I simply feel insulted that a decision would be made on something like that without one of the major participants (me) being involved in the discussion regarding this, and that when it was archived, that no explanation was made. I was not aware that nay discussion about this was ongoing, and when you archived it I thought that you had just done it because you had lost interest in the conversation or because you didn't want to deal with me, or whatever. Without any sort of explanation on why you archived it, you can (hopefully) see how I could have been insulted by this. bob rulz 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't mine. It's made by consensus. And there was a clear consensus on the IRC channel. Chacor 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum, while I'm at it, I apologise, if you do feel strongly about this. Chacor 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, and I apologize if I overreacted or attacked you in any way. I lost control of my emotions a bit...but still, I'm going to become involved in that simply for the reason of trying to improve a couple of things. Either way, I'm still frustrated about this new over-zealous vendetta against harmless, realistic predictions. Either way, now I believe you can archive everything, because I feel that all discussion is done with here. bob rulz 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the drop in tropical storms, but I would have held the other two at 9 and 5. CrazyC83 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't. If anything, I have been leaning on the high end of the old forecast- like 19 storms. I think that he is comparing this year to last year as WAAAY too many people are doing. The first two months are SUPPOSED to be slow!- and now the Cape Verde season is kicking in (I mean, just look at the monster coming off now!). I think this will be a big Cape Verde season, which will easily bring us to 17/9/5, if not more. -Winter123 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not because June and July were "slow" (compared to 2005). Sea level pressures are high, trade winds increased, SSTs have fallen, and El Niño conditions are brewing. —BazookaJoe 05:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the short term, the global models are calling for a massive increase in shear in the East Atlantic. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but, for his sake, I hope he was being sarcastic. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know what the 2006 season would be like? Looks like our 2004 like prediction is dying down. Irfanfaiz 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my crystal ball broke years ago. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Ok i compared other seasons and this season would be similar to 1999's or 1998. In number of storms. Irfanfaiz 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WE ARE NOT EXPERTS. We are not here to make our own forecasts. Please, cut it out. Chacor 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be nice to keep this page free of the predictions/forecasts and just focus on the season, improving the article, and various other things. -- RattleMan 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're overreacting again Chacor. Stop getting upset over the littlest things. Now if he made some prediction like "oh my god there will be 30 storms that will wipe out the entire U.S. coast!!!!1!11!!1" then I would agree with you, but making a harmless and hardly unrealistic prediction such as that is hardly anything to get upset over. bob rulz 06:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online forum. Chacor 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If anywhere at all, predictions belong in the betting pools page (which should probably be moved to the project namespace IMO) and not on this talk page. This thread was meant for discussion of the official forecasts and as a note that they should be added to the main article when available. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just dumb prediction based on the official ones with other hurricane seasons. Irfanfaiz 13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by what you consider the Wikipedia is not an online forum rule to be, then about 50% of the discussion related to tropical cyclones would have to be deleted. bob rulz 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More like 90%, is that a bad thing?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A bad thing that it would be cut out or a bad thing that it's there? bob rulz 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss it if it went :)--Nilfanion (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Storm05 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Now that these pages are being referenced by the monthly tropical cyclone summaries, these "predictions" are likely to be seen by the more scientific audience. I'd say if the prediction is based on some sort of statistics or model runs, fine. Otherwise, it shouldn't be on these pages. Thegreatdr 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I dont understand why scientists dont like hypotehical predictions (30+ named storms, hurricanes with 200+ mph winds, etc). Storm05 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't like them because they're not even close to realistic. Some people call it "wishcasting". --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys are taking all the fun out of this. They're just a few harmless predictions...it's not that I make these predictions, but I don't see anything wrong with making a few predictions that don't affect anything in any way. Now, I wouldn't miss any of those ridiculous predictions (like when people were saying that Chris could explode into a category 5 hurricane or something like that), but people are still overreacting...but whatever, I guess it really doesn't matter. I just think this kind of stuff helps with, like, a sense of community in the tropical cyclone WikiProject (and it's these things like this that make this the best wikiproject on Wikipedia).bob rulz 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If these predictions become public, no matter the source, the media immediately queries the National Weather Service or National Hurricane Center about the predictions sensing a possible news story. If there was no basis for such of a forecast, it can't be defended. False alarms created by incorrect forecasts make their source less relevant for people concerning other information. It doesn't only relate to the person making the forecast, but to the organization allowing the forecast to become public. When people sense more than a couple flaws, they become skeptics. In my opinion, an encyclopedia has no room for information that has no basis in fact. Would you all want Wikipedia to be exclusive to just a handful/clique of people, or an online resource for all? Thegreatdr 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from, but why would this become public? It's not like they're going to have some news story that goes "Wikipedia users think Kirk could become category 5 hurricane! NHC says only category 1 is expected". bob rulz 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Bob on this one. A little bit of personal guessing does no harm. Pobbie Rarr 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how "public" discussions within a closed forum can get...and this forum is open! Has anyone wondered where the name Aldonca came from for the South Atlantic hurricane? It wasn't from Brazil. It originally came from a mailing within the closed professional mailing list, which includes forecasters at a few of the hurricane warning centers and was posted (by permisson) on ONE Austrailian website. Still, it made occasional news articles during the event and I think I spotted it in one of the wikipedia articles a couple months back. It may seem paranoid on my part, but the world is a lot smaller than it used to be pre-internet/1993. Thegreatdr 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this?

What's up with this sudden vendetta against "unscientific prediction"? You people are ruining what makes this the best community on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with making a harmless, realistic prediction. It came out of nowhere just in the past few days; honestly, what's up with this? bob rulz 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been brewing for sometime. It started when the AoI's got dumped onto a subpage. The problem is a LOT of the predictions are anything but harmless (I think this blob of clouds will be a TC is that).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you don't read it if it bothers you? It's not too hard to read 30 comments a day if you just skim over the irrelevant ones...if you want to get frustrated go to WP:LAME and skim through...you will be glad to have to deal with just a few over-zealous weather nuts. Runningonbrains 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is that we have been referenced in Gary Padgett's reports, which are also hosted on NOAA's servers, attracting a more scientific audience. This just degrades the whole project's credibility. Chacor 01:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we submit the Zeta debate to WP:LAME? I think it's worthy, after skimming through their entries. They are mainly about fine points of semantics, like the Zeta debate was. Thegreatdr 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What's been referenced. This article? How does anything degrade the credibility of what you are saying? Can you please explain what you're saying better? bob rulz 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia's tropical cyclone coverage as a whole has been referenced, starting with Padgett's April Monthly Summary. All these unscientific nonsense will only degrade the project, in the eyes of the scientific community coming here from the NOAA link. Chacor 02:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? I doubt the average person is going to come here and read the talk pages, and I think that any intelligent person knows that these are not official forecasts and that it is simply the opinion of the user in question. bob rulz 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no way of knowing or guaranteeing that people aren't checking out the discussion pages. Chances are, if they searched around like I did back in January, that they will discover the discussion page at some point down the line. These kinds of forecasts on weather related internet groups, like Eastern Wx, have kept meteorologists generally off that page. One would think that you would want scientists to be attracted by this encyclopedia-related project, not repulsed by it. Thegreatdr 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but Bob has a point. I doubt anyone is going to come and look at the talk pages, instead of the articles; however, I do believe things were getting out of hand, so as long as people don't think the random clump of cloud over Hispaniola will be the next Katrina, things are ok. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for predicting as long as it doesn't get out of hand, like with Chris. However, we probably should use the prediction subpage a little more for opinions. guitarhero777777 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm alright with this, just as long as not every prediction made on this main talk page is ridiculed, accused of being "unverifiable" and "irrelevant, pointless predictions" or is outright deleted. bob rulz 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not alright with it. Whoever wrote it is [insert most horrible comment you can think of here]! (You know, cause I'd be yelled at from all directions if I actually wrote it)

It degrades the idea of a free, equal, open atmosphere that Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be.

And another thing! How do you call comments like "Oh yea. I'm so stupid sometimes. lol." Official and Scientific? (not picking on anyone, just needed an example... To show whoever wrote that "unscientific" thing that there is no difference between the two pages.)

I am definitely against the pages being split in the first place. Just because some person thought he was "organizing" the talk pages, it causes people with valid points about a possible storm to be ignored on the "UNSCIENTIFIC" discussion.

Remember folks, Every tropical system is just a storm cluster before it is an INVEST!

-Winter123 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but I still agree for the splitting of the talk page, otherwise they would simply be far too disorganized and large. bob rulz 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, our talk pages should already be at WP:LAME for the Zeta nonsense and the 2005 storms debate. Also the colors debate wasn't exactly pleasant… We do have a potential problem, read this comment by the thegreatdr. The AoI subpages should go, as they stem from "lets beat the NHC at their own game", INVESTs are not official, but many AoI's are not "possible development" but "swirl of clouds that looks like a TC to me". However, one look at Chris's archive shows that we have got out of hand, there was more written about 99L.INVEST than there was about Katrina.

Here's my proposal: We set up a series of subpages in the project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical discussion/2006/Atlantic/Chris for example (for unnamed storms keep it on /Atlantic). In those we make our predictions, as long as we don't say stuff like "I hope this TD will be a Cat 5" and keep our perspective. The discussion on this article should be restricted to updates about what has happened: NRL has it as an INVEST, NHC has named Kirk, hurricane warning for Miami, Gordon has 100 mph winds, the kind of stuff which matters to the upkeep of the article. The predictions and betting pool subpages should also go there (to /Atlantic/Predictions for example). This would also give greater organisation for those who enjoy that aspect of things.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't really mind the discussion about prediction to be honest. As long as it doesn't ruin the talk page itself (which I don't feel it has), there's very little problem. Pobbie Rarr 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this, but I guess it doesn't matter too much if it is. I just think that people are making far too big of a deal out of this. bob rulz 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree a little predicition is okay, but some people saying that an invest with tons of shear in the path will be a category 5 is a little out of hand. I'll be honest, though. Last year I did make a number of stupid predictions (I'll never forget Gamma as Cat. 4), which I do feel was detrimental to the talk page. Maybe, those little incidents changed my opinion on random predictions. In short, make predictions, but make them realistic, not amusing. I'l admit predictions are fun to read, but don't clutter up the talk page with the silly ones.

P.S. Sorry if this short essay bored you or caused clutter in the talk page.guitarhero777777 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the predictions should be realistic and not over-the-top. If right after Katrina formed somebody predicted for it to become a category 5 hurricane and devastate New Orleans...sure, they would have been right, but it still would have been a ridiculous prediction at the time. A few realistic predictions do nobody harm. bob rulz 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this place is suffering from Post-2005 Syndrome. Too many people are expecting another monster season. If the season gets going during the second half of this month, I expect these wild predictions to decrease significantly. Pobbie Rarr 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Rarr. And to whoever said to delete the AoI pages- Shame on you! That's called RESTRICTION OF SPEECH (aka COMMUNISM). You've already restricted it enough for making us feel like inferior subhumans for posting there ("unscientific"). -Winter123 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Everyone only has two rights - to fork, or to leave. Chacor 04:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comrades, is it really communist to say that you should try to limit yourselves a little bit? I don't think so. Not every invest is going to be whatever storm name we're at (Debby as of this posting), let alone wipe the gulf coast off the map. I'm tired of people posting the same outlandish prediction multiple times every invest plus the fact it's the same prediction every invest. Not every AoI is going to be an invest even. The AoIs have become any cluster of thunderstorms in the Atlantic and focusing on each one is ridiculous. Sorry if it sounds a little mean, but its true. We need to control ourselves. guitarhero777777 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Partly agreed, as for resonse made by Chacor, Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule makingStorm05 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, see Wikipedia:Free Speech. Please stop being uncivil and accusing me of violating policy. This is not the first time you've cited that policy wrongly, and if you keep this up I shall consider it harassment and report it. Chacor 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, but I think Winter's point is that you can't clamp down on human nature (i.e. trivial comments like "this could be a big storm"). That's where the comparison with communism comes in. I don't know anyone here who deliberately comes on here to start throwing wild predictions around; it's just a little side thing. Of course I'm not calling you a communist Chacor, but I think speaking out against every little iota is unhealthy and does this place no good (though I'm sure you intend well). Pobbie Rarr 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only one who wants them gone. Chacor 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean little comments like "this could be big" or big statements "OMG this will probably be a Cat. 5 in the Gulf of Mexico!!"? If the latter, you have the support of most people on here (including myself). If the former, I'd say you're very much in the minority. There's a difference between wild predictions and little things such as "this could hit Cuba soon". Pobbie Rarr 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Them being the sillyness you pointed out, as well as the silly /betting pools and the /predictions (although, the predictions, as proposed somewhere on this page, could be moved to Wikiproject space - the betting pools should go though). Chacor 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked the betting pools...up until people started putting up betting pools for crap like "okay, now which storms will do a ton of damage this year?" "which countries will get hit hardest?!" and "how much damage will there be this year?" etc. It got really out of hand really fast (notice that I only have predictions for the really basic ones, like which storm will be the strongest, date of first formation and last disippation, and which storm will be the last one). This year's betting pools should stay, but if we make them next year I wouldn't be opposed to cutting out the ridiculous, in-depth, completely random and impossible to predict things. There shouldn't be a betting pool next season if people can't control themselves on what to bet for, but I still think this year's should stay (simply for the fact that it's already there). bob rulz 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just found this little section and am drawn to comment. First off, the AOI's last year were actually somewhat accurate. When someone posted an AOI, 9 times out of 10, it formed (at least from my perspective. Discussions from 2005 AOI's were usually limited to 6 or so lines, the last of which usually ended in someone posting "Gone. - signature." The problem we're having this year stems (I personally believe) from the 2005 massive season. Everyone predicted the season to be just as bad, if not worse. Since the popularity of tropical cyclone development has grown, so has the number of people that post and contribute to the Article and the talk page. I'm not going to post names (everyone knows who you are) but two or three people with no apparent in-depth knowledge of tropical cyclone formation (not meaning to sound insulting, I also have no knowledge but rarely ever posted an AOI) seemed to think every bunch of clouds in the atlantic merited an AOI. Had the number of AOI's been similiar to last year, I don't think we would be having this discussion.

There's a simple thing to consider here: Where's the line drawn? Yes, I agree that AOI's are very unscientific. They're about as scientific as a roulette wheel. Should they be posted on this page? Absolutely not. This is a discussion page for the article: 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season. Therefore topics should be limited to the article itself. I feel that posting information about INVESTS is supportive to the article, as they provide a "heads-up" to those that may not be following the mainstream weather sites but like to contribute to WP. Most times, Invests turn into TD's.

Long story and narrative short, I think that the problem lies in the mass comments by people that make short topics ridiculously long, just like my post. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 03:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

So wait, what's this about Gary Padgett? I essentially stopped coming to this page because of the constant fantasizing over random clouds, it'd be nice to come back, I didn't know AOIs had been moved to a subpage. --Golbez 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied to on IRC. Chacor 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's obviously annoying. I mean, every tropical wave which comes off the coast of Africa seems to be hyped up as the next Hurricane Allen. However, I think bob's point is that some people are getting worked up over nothing i.e. realistic predictionary comments, which have long existed on Wikipedia without getting in the way of progress. I mean, we've never had a problem with this before have we? So it shouldn't be a problem now. Pobbie Rarr 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By "long on Wikipedia" you mean since the middle of last season? I don't think we had any of this AOI stuff before Katrina appeared. And if it forced away good editors like myself (toot toot) then it was getting in the way of progress. --Golbez 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been on here that long myself (though I had been lurking for quite a while). Nevertheless, I've come across older discussions on some of the talk pages (like Hurricane Ivan's) and much of that arguably didn't contribute to the article. But it hardly got in the way either. Don't get me wrong, too much is definitely detrimental but I don't think the present discussions have come to that. Of course, opinions on where to draw the line differ (you obviously seem to think it has been crossed). (BTW I don't see much point in archiving the AOI discussion anyway - why can't we just delete it?) Pobbie Rarr 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, disagree with deleting it (after all, and INVEST is only an "area of interest" too), and as you'll notice I voted keep on the deletion debates. After all, what would we do with the AoI sections of the storms that did go on to become invests (for example, the AoI section of Tropical Storm Chris)...would we just delete those, too? I still think they can provide interesting discussion for that blob in the Atlantic (after all, all storms start out as just another blob in the Atlantic; although I'll admit that it still gets out of hand there sometimes). Also note, however, that I would not be too upset if they were deleted; I just don't see any reason for them to be (although it looks like it's not going to make it through the deletion votes alive). bob rulz 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole argument should be moved to a subpage, so the normal discussion here isn't disrupted. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ideally this discussion should be held on the WikiProject talk page, however by being here the people who care most about it will see it. When we get a resolution, this will be archived to an appropriate location.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to that. I just want to see a quick consensus on this issue rather than dragging it on until it reaches WP:LAME proportions. Pobbie Rarr 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It reached WP:LAME proportions long ago Cryomaniac 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, what happened to the AoIs???? Did some selfish [person] finally remove them? (wanted to use a more appropriate word in the [] but I know people would be like, "OMFG U VIOLATED TEH RULEZZ U SHUUD BE BANED!!!1".) Honestly, this board [stinks really bad] now. It has been going waaaaay downhill ever since some [not cool person] split the talk pages, the people here are [totally not smart] and I think they should all [ ]!!!!!! Seriously, whoever did this, are you a Communist? Do you not like Freedom of Speech? You've driven sooooo many people away from here already, and even I barely come here anymore because it [stinks bigtime] and the people left are all so [ ]. Just Change it back to how it was last year, and it will be a much more pleasant place for everyone, not to mention way more active. If you dont, then [ ]! -Winter123 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted through WP:MFD. Chacor 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)