Talk:2006 Central Pacific cyclone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Todo[edit]

Little bit of cleanup and some clarifying, but all in all pretty solid. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should central be capitalized? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2006 Central Pacific cyclone redirects here, but if you think it should be capitalized I'll move the page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it looks a little weird, personally, since I think that the first letter after the year should be capitalized. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any info on rainfall in Canada? The article should be properly formatted concern its units; it should be imperial (metric). That is, it should be 65 mph (105 km/h), with a non-breaking space in between (see this in the edit window). Knots and nmi should be avoided. I feel like there should be more storm history, but it might not be possible with such a storm. These things need to be cleaned up/clarified.

  • was one of the most unusual weather events of 2006 - that is a bit POV
  • Sub should be linked to subtropical, since some might not be confused when they read "sub"
  • the system had winds of 55 kts - were those winds measured, or was it estimated?
  • When did the storm pass near the buoy?
  • The Infobox says it dissipated November 3rd, but the SH doesn't say anything about how it died; this needs to be fixed
  • The Canadian Hurricane Center considered this to be an extratropical cyclone - I think it should be indicated that the CHC also included the storm in their 2006 hurricane season review.
  • Hence, if this system is considered a tropical or subtropical storm of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season, it is a completely unofficial one. - Given the rest of the article, the last clause should be toned down a bit. Perhaps say the storm is not officially considered a tropical or subtropical storm.

--♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "an unusual...."
  • Expanded to subtropical
  • says they were estimated
  • date provided
  • The article says convection was...
  • The source indicated that it was from the CHC's annual review, but that was added anyway
  • Rephrased
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the demise of the storm in the storm history (when and where did it make landfall?)? Non-breaking spaces are needed, and the units should be in mph and miles, not knots and nmi; metric units are also needed in parenthesis. At least, I think it should be imperial (metric in parenthesis), since it is in the NHC/CPHC area of jurisdiction. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track problem?[edit]

There appears to be a problem with the track image for this storm; perhaps it misinterpreted some data points. Can someone create a new one? -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with the track? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Near the top of the track (around Oregon's latitude), the track begins to spazz far to the right, then heads left, then jumps to the right (look at the spaces between the data points). Is that how the actual cyclone behaved or am I missing something here? -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK Yes. Tracks for storms of subtropical origin can be odd sometimes. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, not that unusual though. I think something is afoul. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

No consensus to merge. Closing this very old and stale discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has sort of floundered over the past few years. It was originally made in 2008, and it hasn't changed much since then. It'd be different if it was actually classified as a tropical cyclone, but as it wasn't, I'm not so sure it should exist as an article. The main point of the article seems to be on the debate of whether it was a TC or not, but that can be summed up in a sentence or two. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. But I will oppose merging it with 2006 Pacific hurricane season (if anyone proposed that location) on the grounds that it is not an official tropical cyclone that year. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it may not be an official TC, i think it maybe worth chucking it into an other storms section and making it clear that it isnt recognised by CPHC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose any type of merge. This storm is unique by itself, and its special nature (and especially the controversy of it) definitely warrants its own article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. It is an unique storm, it's within the league of 2005 Azores subtropical storm. SMB99thx my edits 06:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Central_Pacific_cyclone&oldid=1213089684"