Since I don't see a discussion here and Tito reverted my edit, why on earth is Zeta in this article? It defies logic. TimL 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Because Zeta was part of this season. Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That's like if someone asks "Why is the sky Blue?" replying "Because it's blue." How is Zeta part of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season? TimL 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It lasted from 2005 to 2006, simply put. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, Zeta survived from 2005 into 2006, though it officially counts as a 2005 storm. Pobbie Rarr 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I realize this, that does not explain why it is in the article. TimL 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

1955 Atlantic hurricane season lists Alice II in an other storms section. I propose likewise. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually the only reason I can see for having that in the 1955 article is because it was originally believed to have started in 2006 (and thus given the first name for the 1955 season. TimL 01:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There's no need for an other storms section here. Zeta was a storm during the season. Though it formed during the 2005 season, it lasted until the 2006 season. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This seems completely wrongheaded. The season doesn't start until June 1st. Storms that form before that date but after 2005 are outside of the season but given a name from the 2006 season list of names. It lasted into 2006, but it did not last into the 2006 season. Where are you getting the idea to say Zeta lasted until the 2006 season? TimL 01:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry hurricanehink, but Tim's correct. The season is technically defined as that set period of months during the calendar year of the season. Zeta did exist during 2006 but did not form during the time period indicated in the title of this artlcle 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season. Zeta should be placed in an other storms catagory if it is to remain on this page. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What about Ana in 2003? That formed before June 1, but was part of the 2003 season. The storms section is simply storms that occurred, not necessarily storms that formed during the season. I don't see why Zeta has to be last or anything. On January 1, it was active, and should be first in the list of storms, even if it was from the previous year. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"Zeta" is in here because it crossed over into January. January is part of the 2006 season and therefore it's part of the 2006 season as much as it is part of the 2005 season. It's also notable because storms don't form that late nor exist that late and yet IT did. SargeAbernathy 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

January is not part of the 2006 season. A storm that forms in Januariy is part of the 2006 season. TimL 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Prior page-law dictates that Alice II was also a two-year storm. It was listed as a main storm on the page of the year it was formed and then referenced in the Other Storms section of the year it lasted until. There's no doubt in my mind that this is both the same issue and best solution to the dispute. No one seemed to have a problem with that page, nor did anyone have a problem comparing that storm to this one, so why do you have a problem with consistent layouts for the same circumstances? It's clear, it's simple, it should be done. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware of "page-law". You can see my reasoning for why Alice makes sense above. It is not the same case here. (I'm getting sick of edit-conflicts lol) TimL 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I cite page-law like a lawyer would cite case-law. I couldn't think of a better term to describe a solution to a problem that's happenned. My reason for why it's the same scenario is as follows: The storm carries the name, in sequence, of a storm in the '05 Season. It's technically then not part of the '06 season. Therefore, if Zeta is to stay here at all, it should be as an Other Storm. It was not part of the '06 season. Oh, and edit conflicts suck. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As the writer of the page-law (I was the one who added the other storms section, but that was months ago), I'd like to say that the other storms section is not needed. The storm section is the storms that occurred during the year. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Mid-wikibreak suggestion from me: Remove the infobox, but maintain a short blurb on Zeta ( as it was, w/out the infobox, before this discussion started again). NSLE 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would agree. I must have seen that version many times and never had a problem with it. TimL 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• We're not going to use an "Other storms" section here because we're not going to separate tropical depressions out of the storm history. By the way, this was previously discussed here. The storm lasted until 2006, and that doesn't happen often, so it gets an entry here too. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting it. There's no consensus. Zeta is simply part of both seasons. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Just reminding both Tito and Tim that they've both used two reverts, so please watch it. NSLE 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I made a diffrent edit, that counts as a revert? Tito also edited a different edit. This isn't a revert war. However obviously Tito didn't agree with either of my edits. TimL 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I tried to make it consistent with the 1954 season. I did not know we were not using "Other Storms". Hink you keep saying it is part of both season, can you back that up? TimL 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The format after 1997 is almost compeletely different from the format before that, as there is much more information on tropical depressions now than before. Also, 1954/1955 don't use {{ infobox hurricane small}}, etc. The primary entry for Zeta is, and should be, in the 2005AHS article—I'm not saying that that should be changed. However, there is a mention of Alice2 on 1955AHS, so there should be one of Zeta here. The format of both articles is different, though. A reader looking at the article wants to know all the storms that happened in 2006, and the article currently makes it clear it was a carry-over from the 2005 season, so I don't know what's wrong with mentioning it. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Zeta lasted from 2005 to 2006. The 2005 season lasted from January 1 to December 31, 2005, though it's only official from June 1 to November 30, 2005. Because Zeta lasted past December 31, it extended into the 2006 season, which began on January 1. The reason I am saying the season begins on January 1 is because storms that form before June 1 use the names from that season. Examples of this include Ana (2003, formed in April), Arlene (1981, formed in May), and a lot of other previous ones. The season goes until December 31 because, as seen in 2003 and 2005, a storm forming in December will continue the naming list. Zeta was named using 2005's list, for example. What more do I have to back up? Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You missed the obvious example Hink - Hurricane Alice. It was operationally part of the 1955 season and was initially thought to have formed on January 1. It wasn't until post-storm analysis that it became a 1954 storm. Direct comparison of Zeta to Alice seems a little flawed IMO, because the article on 1955AHS is old. Alice has its track map in both the seasonal articles, which is the equivalent of the infobox for that timeframe. Zeta should be mentioned here, it's just a question of how do we best show its status as part of 2005AHS which occured in 2006? I think it will get less annoying when the season has more storms.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 09:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I wanted to ignore Alice, mainly due to the complexity of its case. I think it is fine how it is now; no infobox but mention at the beginning of the storm section. Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

And Good Kitty removed it again (and took out the reference as well). Didn't we agree that it was fine the way it was before? Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 22:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I realize I am in the minority, but I think the way Good Kitty made it is a good compromise, just a very short blurb. TimL 23:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem with having just one line, like the article has right now, is that in the future, when the article is sent to WP:FAC, for example, it will get opposed on having a sub-stub section. See the ongoing Katrina FAC near the top for an example. If the section can be expanded (and it was), then why do we leave a stub section there? I don't understand why. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(Did I type the right number of colons?) I don't think that is a good example. This is a whole diffrent animal, right now it's just the beginning of a list of storms. If the season ends up like 2005, then everything will be condensed eventually, correct? TimL 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it's not a compeletely different animal—no article should ever have a sub-stub section, which is what the section as it stands is. And why should we leave everything for later and add more work to clean up the article when we can do it now? Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, maybe I just got bored of there not being a storm in the atlantic to talk about anymore so I decided to create one on this talk page lol. I am now quite familiar with the edit conflict process. I'll be less hasty with edits in the future. TimL 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I think some are confused, Zeta never existed in the 2006 season. The 2005 season lasted from June 1, 2005 until January 6, 2006. The 2006 season began on June 1, 2006. Using the logic that Zeta was part of both seasons, then if we reached the spot for Zeta again this year, it would be skipped over, which is not the case. The NHC even stated that the 2005 season did not conclude until Jan 6. Here is a statement from the final advisory of Zeta: "...ZETA AND THE RECORD-BREAKING 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON FINALLY COME TO AN END..." I agree that Zeta deserves a small mention in this article, but should not be in the storms section. -- Holderca1 20:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. A mention no longer than two sentences with links to the articles on Zeta and the 2005 season would be appropriate. Ev-Man 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

In any case, welcome back Holderca1. It's been quite a while since I've seen you around here. -- RattleMan 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(slaps self on forehead) That's just it really. It doesn't belong in the storms section. Elswhere maybe, but not in the storms section. TimL 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There is a minor mistake in that comment. If a second storm had formed on January 2 it would have been named Alberto and we would have had Zeta of 2005 and Alberto of 2006 active concurrently. A sensible location for Zetas mention will become more obvious once the 2006 storms actually do something.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If a second storm had formed on January 2, then the 2005 season and the 2006 season would of overlapped. Thanks for the welcome back, it has been awhile, got married and moved, life has just been pretty busy lately. -- Holderca1 01:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If a storm had a formed on January 2, would it really have been named Alberto??? If so, then I'd like to remove Zeta from the Storms section ToC and "go ahead" and insert the ToC, but not as a template, since this is the only place it's used. Is this a good place to ask for objections? Jerry 05:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it would have been named Alberto. The hurricane season begins on January 1 and ends December 31; however, 99.9% of storms occur between June 1 and November 30, and thus that's when the National Hurricane Center produces the tropical cyclone-related products. As for a storms section TOC, please no, not yet. -- Golbez 07:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

How's this for a solution? Simply mention it in the intro ("In addition to the XX storms, Tropical Storm Zeta persisted from the 2005 season until January 6"). Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Zeta deserves a mention simply to avoid any confusion which may arise when studying the storm (e.g. 2005 or 2006?). As has been pointed out however, it shouldn't be included in the Storms section. Personally, I'd bracket it in the intro. Pobbie Rarr 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, as a sugestion; one could give Zeta an own section apart from te storms of the 2006-season, as done in the Dutch article.. Tropische Storm Sven 18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an excellent suggestion, and I very much support it. Because Zeta existed in 2006, it deserves to be mentions in this article, but technically it is a 2005 storm, not a 2006 storm. -- EMS | Talk 23:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Zeta crossed over into 2006. Yes. But it did not cross over into the 2006 season. It remained part of the 2005 season, and to this day remains part of the 2005 season. If it were part of the 2006 season, it'd have been renamed Alberto. End. Of. Keep Zeta in the 2005 season topic. Double Dash 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would just like to point out that by your above comment, Zeta did not form during the 2005 season either, if you take a season to be June-October. Anyway, it existed in both 2005 and 2006, so it should get mention in both seasons. WotGoPlunk 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I haven't linked it yet, but I created this at Template:ToC2006Atlantichurricaneseason. It includes Zeta off to the left and ends up nicely symmetrical with William on the right. For now. The columnation will get thrown off as the season progresses, so I'm not sure how useful the current format is. But at least I got a chance to practice. If it's useful, when do you want to start using it? Jerry 06:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I like how that looks. How easy will it be to add Greek storms to the template in case they're needed? -- Coredesat 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I added the Greek names. "UU" means "unused", which is taking up too much column width. Jerry 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The greek names shouldn't be on there. Only as they form. Also instead of UU perhaps we could come up with some sort of icon which suggests the name was not used (storm did not form). Finally, I don't think depressions would need to go in here. TimL 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Have a look at Template:ToC2004Atlantichurricaneseason and Template:ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason for inclusion of unnamed storms like Tropical Depression 10. We should be consistent among the three years that have already used this format. These examples' ToCs end where the season ended, so, ultimately, there are no "UU" or any other icons suggesting the name wasn't used. Jerry 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would just remove any unused names from the ToC instead of leaving them in there - there is no use for having a ToC entry pointing to a non-existant section. -- AySz88 \ ^-^ 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)0 reply

The only use would be that some of the work is already done, and the colors and codes could be filled in easily as storms formed. Maybe we should keep the unformed storms until we actually link the ToC to the season's main page at the "Storms" section, like last year. At that time, we can remove the unformed storms from the ToC so they don't confuse readers. Jerry 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh I was thinking this was a replacement for the names section(and the button bar). TimL 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it was originally. Jerry 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The nice thing about this is it combines the functionality of the button bar and the names section into one entity. TimL 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, just like last year's, which I copied. Jerry 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't follow. TimL 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I copied Template:ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason and adjusted it for 2006's names. Jerry 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Depressions and unnamed storms could also throw it off. But it looks quite nice... CrazyC83 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That's why I wrote For now above; they will throw off the columns. The editor can use the column containing the single storm name William for spillover when adding depressions and unnamed storms when necessary to the earlier columns. That means moving the fourth item to the top of the next column for all columns following the addition of each extra storm. What a pain. Or we can just do an accumulating ToC to avoid all the hassle. Thanks for the constructive comments. (On a side note, I was hoping the authorities could eventually name storms after our pets. I love pondering the possibility of "Hurricane Scruffy".  ;-) Jerry 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's the "perfect" solution: I've commented out the unused storm names with "<!--" and "-->". As storms form, move the begin of the comment down, i.e., move the "<!--" down, so as to no longer include the latest storm. It will then appear in the ToC, and someone should also ad the category and stormcolour, etc., at that time. I'm adding the ToC to the Storms section of the 2006 season page... Here goes... Jerry 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

A slightly different issue: Why are these ToCs templates? They're only included in one place, it seems... -- AySz88 \ ^-^ 06:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Good point. 2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season uses it and the links point external to the main article, while List_of_storms_in_the_2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season looks like it uses it (see just under the introduction), but the links point internally. Hmmm. What to do... Jerry 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I was going to re-add the Storms section ToC but not as a template, but I'm not sure everyone wants it, since it has been removed. I was going to re-add it as it is currently constructed for the template, with most of it commented out but ready for inclusion by moving the "<!--" down to release the succeeding storm names as the season progresses. I'll wait for someone to say it's OK to include it this way. If we don't include it in any form at the beginning of the Storms section, then we should get rid of it in 2004 and 2005. If we include it as I've described, then I'll update 2004 and 2005 to include the ToC, but not as a template. Also, if there are objections to using the commenting out method, I'd like to know. Thanks. Jerry 14:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The template includes Beryl now. The ToC might be OK to add to this page after the 5th or 6th storm, but not as a template. Jerry 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

You all are touching on a debate that is occasionally brought up in meteorological circles. Consider the Western Pacific Basin for a moment. Their "season" begins in April, ramps up in July/August/September, and then the activity slowly drops off into January. Would a Western Pacific tropical cyclone this January be considered part of the 2005 typhoon season? Most would say yes. Did it occur in 2005? No. Only the Atlantic and eastern Pacific basins get tied up into this concept of a defined "hurricane season." Since Zeta existed in 2006, there should be something in the 2006 article about Zeta.

To avoid this kind of semantic debate, perhaps, for example, all articles with the format of "2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season" should be renamed "2006 Atlantic Tropical Cyclones." Why get tied in to the "hurricane season" pigeonhole, if it's going to cause this much frustration? I find it oddly amusing that this Zeta issue has people stirred up to a lesser extreme, but similarly, to the complete unrelated gay marraige issue. It's all semantics. If all civil marraiges just were termed civil unions, there would be no debate on that issue. It's tie in to religion that stirs people up. Simple fix. Same is true for these Atlantic Hurricane Season articles. Take out the semantic term "Hurricane Season" and all will be well. Just for reference...I've seen NHC hurricane specialists react the same way on other tropical cyclone issues...they get tied up and frustrated by fine points of semantics as well. In the grand scheme of things, is this Zeta issue really worth the effort you all are pouring into this "debate"? Thegreatdr 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It's not 2006, it's the 2006 season--
Lamrock 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply

agree. It's a real annoyance. This article is about the season, not the year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamrock ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC). reply

Yeah, so if you go by those standards, TS Zeta does not even fall into a season, because technically it ends Nov 30. So by those standards, anything goes, and we've chosen to include it on this page. It's 1 sentence. What is it hurting? → JARED  ^(t)  21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Um, no. Read the thread below why. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, agreeing with your own comment is not usually a good way of getting your point across. -- Coredesat 02:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You lost me at HURRICANE Zeta.... - Winter123 03:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It should go, really...it should just be mentoined in the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season topic that it lasted into January 2006...and, yes, it should be TS Zeta...changed it. Double Dash 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Disagree. There has been ton of previous discussion on this point, and I believe that the consensus of that discussion was leave it the way it is now. Its fine...let it be. Runningonbrains 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Disagree. For all that the page is for the season, and the season goes according to the NHC from June 1 to November 30, we *do* include storms that fall outside the 6 month season. If Alberto had run from March 1 to March 5, we certainly would include it. Therefore this article should include those storms which occur at anytime during 2006 and Zeta did occur in 2006 as well as 2005. Naraht 12:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Look at it this way: if you were born in 2005, you would not be included in the birth statistics for 2006.

But you would be included in those who were alive in 2006 (presuming that you were still alive). Naraht 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What if it is put under "other storms." like in the 2000 season. Alberto is more significant anyway to the year, and this shows it is not on the same level as alberto? jj 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I wasn't going to coment here because I think its a bit absurd to start a voting process for something like this, but I think I've realized the true signifigance of Zeta to the 2006 season and added a simple sentence to the Zeta section to reflect that. TimL 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree with deleting the section and I disagree with having this discussion. We've gone over this too many times before. The 2006 season encompasses all of 2006. Only the so-called official season begins June 1 and ends November 30. Why not include Zeta? Alice was included in the 1955 season article as well, but it ended up in the "Other storms" section. — Super-Magician ( talk •  contribs •  count) ★ 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Disagree - Zeta (2005) existed in 2006, and so should be reported. -- EMS | Talk 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Very much disagree. Not only was it in 2006, but it was the earliest exsisting storm since Alice. Definatley worthy. →Cycl one1→ 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zeta is NOT an official storm of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, because it formed BEFORE the year 2006 started. Thus, it does NOT belong in the section for official 2006 storms, if that section belongs in this article at all, it belongs OUTSIDE that section. People are reverting the change because of...I really don't know why other than that they really don't have any viable arguments other than "it lasted through the early days of the year 2006". Well, when the NHC or some other hurricane designating organization names it as the first official storm of the season, then I will change my opinion, until then, it doesn't belong in that section. And that one editor's solution of changing the section title to "Storms of 2006" doesn't solve it either, because Zeta is officially a storm of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. I say we leave the section title as "Storms", and either (a) remove the section and include only a passing reference to Zeta in the intro, or (b) move the Zeta section just above the Storms section, so readers are not given the impression it is an official 2006 storm. -- Revolución hablar ver 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I re-assert my position as well. This simply does not belong in the storms section of the 2006 AHS for reasons stated in the previous discussion. It is not a storm of the 2006 AHS per NHC. Simple enough? TimL 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I really don't know what the issue is here. Zeta formed in 2005 as part of the 2005 season, continued into the year 2006 but until it disappated the 05 season could not end. When Zeta ended, so did the 2005 season. It has nothing to do with the 2006 season, it just happened to exist in the year 2006 for a while... doktorb _words ^deeds 06:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If anything belongs on WP:LAME... -- Golbez 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, someone add it. It's getting really tiring. I'm at the point where I don't even *care* about the outcome. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I completely agree with Revolucion. Even though this discussion went on... and on... and on, we have to get it out of the 06' season. This line is pure bs: "Had it formed only two days later, it would have become the first storm of the 2006 season and been given the name Alberto." We could just put Tropical Storm Arlene in here and say "Had it formed only 6 months later, it would have become the first storm of the 2006 season and been given the name Alberto." .. well thats not my point though. It //dissipated// in 2006.. but didn't FORM in 2006. - Tc w d 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zeta solution 1. The majority of users believe it belongs in the article, as evidenced by most states of the article.

2. It should be included b/c it lasted into the 06 calendar year. 3. it was not part of the '06 season. 4. it should not be listed under 2006 storms. 5. either change the title back to storms or move Zeta out to its own section, doing a slight rewrite to reflect #2. 6. Meanwhile, vote on which of the two options in 5 you like better. 7. It is plausible, should a 2004-style season happen, that Zeta should be deemed less relevant than future storms, and placed below Alberto, Beryl, etc., even if the consensus is to keep it in with Alberto jj 23:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ugh, why can't it just be included in the storms section. Zeta was a storm that occurred during the 2006 season. Hurricane Huko in October of 2002 was a storm that formed in the CPAC, and went to the WPAC. It occurred in the 2002 WPAC season, but wasn't a 2002 WPAC storm. Thus, it should still get mention in the storms section, but it should not be part of the infobox. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

How I view it: The Atlantic hurricane "season" is conventionally June-November, just because that's when NHC and those people want people to be alert, and because it's when 99% of the storms form. But since storms CAN form at anytime throughout the year, the 2006 season is ACTUALLY all year. It's just that most people don't pay attention to it outside of June-November, because there's little to no reason to. So, if a storm exists in 2006, it is part of the 2006 season.

But honestly, what's the big deal? I read it yesterday and I like it how it is! Just leave it.- Winter123 09:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Have we done a straw poll on the issue yet? WotGoPlunk 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll set it up. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, is everyone convinced? There's a consensus that Zeta should be part of the normal Storms section. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I am convinced that there is concensus (though I figured there always was). I think this most definately shows that most everyone agrees. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think it is really a matter of a consensus, but what is factually accurate. No where does the NHC say that Zeta was a storm in the 2006 Season. They mention in their report that it existed in two different calendar years, but nothing about two different seasons. 500 years ago you would get a consensus on the world being flat, that doesn't mean that it was correct. -- Holderca1 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If your issue is about accuracy, then it would be hard to trust HURDAT (the Atlantic hurricane database) much before the advent of Quikscat and other microwave imagery about 10 years ago. The hurricane reanalysis is meant to address this issue, which may take another decade to complete, the way the project is going so far. It is an interesting observation that once a meteorologist finishes their degree and enters the National Weather Service, it becomes all too clear that there are fuzzy, grey areas in meteorology, particularly in the realm of tropical cyclones. It's interesting how quickly the word "official", let alone straightforward defintions, drops out of your own lexicon, except when relating to the public. It's amazing meteorology is considered a science considering the uncertainty in the terms used. Thegreatdr 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Your reply does not apply to the issue at hand. There is no question in anyones mind that the storm existed in both calendar years. As the article is written now, it implies that Zeta was a storm of the 2006 Season, which I have not seen a single source to say that it is part of the 2006 Season. By the page saying it is part of the 2006 Season without a reference to back that up, that constitutes original research and opinion that it should be included. -- Holderca1 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

My reply in renaming all the "2006 Atlantic hurricane season"-like pages to "2006 Atlantic tropical cyclones" six sections above this one from July 15 already addressed this semantic issue. Why are people so attached to the term "hurricane season", which is only defined in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific basins. One could argue that using the term "hurricane season" is either point of view (POV), so it should be eliminated, or merely a United States concept, which means the term should be eliminated because it is not from a global perspective. I would definitely like to see feedback regarding this issue in the portion 6 sections up. Renaming the pages would eliminate a lot of grief, apparently. Thegreatdr 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

No one is claiming that Zeta was a part of the 2006 season; you're making that up in order to more easily defeat the argument. You yourself just said the NHC notes that it existed in two different calendar years, which ought to be a good indication that it should be mentioned in both the 2005 and 2006 articles. I don't see what the harm is in just having one simple paragraph explaining why Zeta is a part of the 2005 season, with a link to its respective article. Your claim that the article "implies" that Zeta was a storm in the 2006 season is your own opinion set up as a straw man. Since you're so big on sources, show me where in the article's history it was asserted that Zeta was a part of the 2006 season, rather than just a part of the 2006 calendar year. -- 69.40.210.179 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The article implies that Zeta was a storm in the 2006 Season when it is listed under storms of the 2006 Season. I never said that it should not be mentioned in the article, just not in the list of the 2006 Season storms. I 100% agree that it deserves a mention in this article, just the location of that mention is what concerns me. -- Holderca1 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, Zeta was a storm in the 2006 season. However, it shouldn't count towards the numbers. I'll use my argument I've used elsewhere. Consider the Central Pacific storms moving into the west Pacific, like Typhoon/Hurricane Huko in October 2002. It was a typhoon in the 2002 Pacific typhoon season, and should be mentioned in the storms section in the article, but it didn't form in that basin. Thus, it shouldn't count towards the numbers but it should still be mentioned, IMO. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

What?! That statement isn't logical. If a tropical cyclone existed in a basin, it counts towards the overall numbers in that basin. Clearly, it wouldn't be counted twice globally, and it wouldn't be counted as a system that FORMED in that basin, but it did exist in the basin so it is part of the overall basin count. Where did you get this idea from? Does this mean (in your mind) that crossover storms from the Atlantic to the Eastern Pacific aren't counted in the Eastern Pacific totals? That would be like saying that if a stapler was moved from my desk to Suzie's desk that the stapler is not acknowleged as being on Suzie's desk because it wasn't originally there. It is an interesting philosophical argument, but I didn't think encyclopedae were places were philosophical debate. Are they? Thegreatdr 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you sure? In the past, WPAC storm totals didn't count the CPAC totals, right? That's how I rationalized it, at least. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If the storm existed in both basins, yes it is counted towards both basins totals. -- Holderca1 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, time to move on, Zeta goes in Storms. Let's close the discussion. jj 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you, good point. Can we just archive this discussion? -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

By a plurality vote, TS Zeta goes in Storms and this discussion and other ones on it shall be archived. So let it be written, so let it be done. jj 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

First off, active discussions should never be archived. Second, the vote below is only slightly biased. If you do a real count of the votes, there are 23 that support and 18 that voted that they did not support. So not much of a consensus. Third, this is an encyclopedia, if it is to remain in the storms section, it should be referenced with a site that mentions it as part of the 2006 Season. I will refrain from slapping a {{ fact}} on it. No sense on infuriating people more on this. -- Holderca1 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

TS Zeta straw poll

• Include Zeta as a storm in a section entitled Storms

1. Hurricanehink ( talk)
2. bob rulz 02:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
4. and warm up a spot on WP:LAME. -- Golbez 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Winter123 04:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Ajm ⁸¹ 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
7. doktorb _words ^deeds 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC) enough already! reply
8. Aranae 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
9. WotGoPlunk 20:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Runningonbrains 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Core des at talk. o.o;; 01:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
12. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Donovan Ravenhull 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 22:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Super-Magician ( talk •  contribs •  count) ★ 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Goobergunch| ? 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (but see below) reply
17. WmE 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Chariot 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
19. The great kawa 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
20. SargeAbernathy 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
21. JVG 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
22. § Hurricane E RIC § archive 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Zeta reached peak intensity in January. I think that warrents it a place in the storms section. reply
23. Simesa 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Include Zeta as a storm in a section entitled Storms of 2006

1. Reub2000 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. EMS | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Include Zeta as its own section, then have a section entitled Storms

1. -- Revolución hablar ver 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Put Zeta in an Other Storms section

1. Bladeswin | Talk to me | 03:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. jj 14:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- Tc w d 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC) like 1955 season's page for Hurricane Alice. reply

• Only mention Zeta in the intro

1. TimL 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
3. 168.254.225.254 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Pobbie Rarr 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
5. CrazyC83 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
6. If it was truly a storm of the 2006 season, they would have changed the name to Alberto on January 1, just as they change the name if it changes basins. -- Holderca1 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Forget it.

• Rename the Atlantic Hurricane Season Pages Atlantic Tropical Cyclones of that year

1. Consider renaming the page to avoid this semantic argument altogether. Thegreatdr 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• There's way too much arguing over this topic

1. RattleMan 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Pikachu9000 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
4. I would have added this to WP:LAME, but the amount of actual edit warring has been small. — Cuivi é nen 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
5. It seems that 6.5 months of discussion really can't get anything done. Runningonbrains 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
6. There is indeed WAY too much arguing. But, I still have to give my support per "include Zeta as a storm in a section entitled Storms." — Super-Magician ( talk •  contribs •  count) ★ 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Goobergunch| ? 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (but see above) reply
8. Core des at talk. o.o;; 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Ajm ⁸¹ 01:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Tohugh I'm happy 2006 has been quiet enough so far for so many to want to include a 2005 storm ;) -- Tarkadal 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
11. There is indeed way too much discussion. However, to make all season's pages the same, we should do the same here as 1955 season's page for Hurricane Alice2.. i think that would be the most reasonable way to go about doing this. - Tc w d 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    Done. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

12. JVG 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Winter123 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

By a plurality vote, TS Zeta goes in Storms and this discussion and other ones on it shall be archived. So let it be written, so let it be done. jj 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

With some support (drum roll please), this discussion has been added to WP:LAME. And...I'd be willing the bet a shiny dollar coin that this issue will resurface at some point again in the near future, when a new editor joins the project, or someone senses a shift in popular opinion. When it does, we can append it to the end of this article. Thegreatdr 20:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just saw this on WP:LAME. I read through some of the arguments, but not all. Those proponents of striking Zeta from 2006 have grounds for considering it's inclusion a violation of Wikipedia's no original reasearch policy, yay for WP:NBD. If someone has provided an official source for inclusion of Zeta specifically in the 2006 hurricane season, then I suppose it's cool. Otherwise take a look at these official sources from the National Hurricane Center, NASA and the National Climatic Data Center (part of NOAA), Accuweather and Unisys, which include Zeta in the 2005 season [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], but not in the 2006 season. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Not to mention the muses of the NHC forecasters in the public advisories (again issued by an official government source): [11] [12] [13]. Have fun! -- Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Upon further scanning I see someone (holderca1) brought this up before. But, I put in references to show the zeta != 2006 side. :) -- Stratosphere ^{( U T)} 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If we're really going to go that way, the National Climatic Data Center includes Zeta in their 2006 season page, and also on their Atlantic Tropical cyclones page... Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There seems to be something of an edit war going on about whether Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) should be included here. IMHO, it was part of the 2005 season, so it shouldn't. However, a compromise might be to have a placeholder with a link to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season on this page. -- Portnadler 09:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please look at the archives. We've had this discussion for AGES, and consensus is that a small section remains. – Ch acor 10:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply