Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2006 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

2006 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Featured topic nom, five years in the making! I'll be sure to get two more featured before September, but it meets the criteria right now, so I'm nominating it. Hope y'all like it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a fun little factoid, pending the passage of the topic, Hurricane Ioke will be part of three FT's, which I believe would be a first. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very well done! It's good when you guys get one of the bigger ones done. Which season next? :) rst20xx (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do have a slight issue with this and I guess other seasons. {{2006 Pacific hurricane season buttons}} doesn't contain links to the timeline or list of storms, and this template doesn't appear on the former of those two lists - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what about 2006 Central Pacific cyclone? It is not recognised by either of the official Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers for the eastern north Pacific, and so is not an official tropical or subtropical cyclone of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. However - it was in the Pacific, the sources seem to suggest it was in fact a tropical, subtropical, or extratropical cyclone, and it has its own section in the 2006 Pacific hurricane season article - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for taking so long to get back to this issue) About the template, I brought it up to other WPTC members. I agree that they should be included, and once I get approval (seeing how the template is so widely used), I'll add them in. With regards to the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone, I did not include it because it was not an official tropical cyclone. I made the 2006 Pacific hurricane season article, and included that storm, but I don't necessarily think it should be part of the topic since it's not an official storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the timeline and storms listing is now included. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Generally they are kept to only the storms but i am looking for a way to other articles to the list.Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Do I need to say anything? Rst20xx the 1989 Pacific hurricane season will be next. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Not unless I get my season done first ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support An entire season for a FT is an amazing feat! Well done. —Terrence and Phillip 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nothing to be said really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yueof theNorth 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, meets all the criteria. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why has the nomination yet to close. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 2006 Central Pacific cyclone does need to be included. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the 2006 EPAC season; it's included in the relevant category and discussed in the main article. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other opinions on the necessity of the Central Pacific cyclone? Of course it 'can' be included, but whether or not it 'needs' to be seems to be both ways. It's not in the list of 2006 storms, but it is in the category, so it's tough to determine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that article: "Hence, this system is not an official tropical or subtropical cyclone of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season." So I'm inclined to say no. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should not be included in this topic's category and main article. If we include it as part of Wikipedia's series of articles on the 2006 season, there should be no reason to deny it inclusion within the FT. Juliancolton (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's included in the same way that Christmas 1994 nor'easter is included in the 1994 AHS article. Due to the possibility, it's interesting that it's included, but I don't think it should have to be included. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if I ever nominated the 1994 season for FT, I'd include the nor'easter without a second thought. It's inconsistent to say it's not part of the season, but include it in the season articles, but not include it in the FT nomination. If the CP cyclone article were a GA or better, would you list it as part of this topic? Juliancolton (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't automatically, and especially not on the first nomination. For the 1998 PHS season, I didn't/wouldn't include the October 1998 Central Texas floods, which is mentioned in the season article, and could arguably be part of the timeline if the timelines included information other than what's in the BT. I really think it's optional whether or not to include the loosely related articles to the season. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it from the category and I'll agree. Until then, it's part of the topic, and therefore I feel compelled to ~~oppose~~ on the grounds that this topic neglects a relevant article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, whoops, I forgot it was in the 2006 PHS category. No worries, I removed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. In that case I withdraw my objection and support promotion of the topic. Juliancolton (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]