Talk:Tropical Storm Chris (2006)

Merge - early stages

Right now, nothing that couldn't be in the seasonal article. Indeed, this could fall apart by the next advisory. Chacor 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is near land though and Alberto and Beryl (although they were near the US) had articles at this point. There is more that could be added here, I have already started to add new stuff. The policy was to create an article when it approaches land - it has done that. CrazyC83 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to said discussion of policy? Look what happened to Daniel. Chacor 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Past discussions on Alberto and Beryl. The difference here is that it is affecting land from the get-go (the Lesser Antilles). CrazyC83 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, keep the page. -- WmE 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, per CrazyC83 Cryomaniac 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now. Now that it's made, we'll just to the updates here. If it does dissipate and do nothing, axe it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - isn't it now policy to give every Atlantic tropical storm its own article?? Pobbie Rarr 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. Only once a storm affects land (like when it causes tropical cyclone warnings) does a storm get an article operationally. Fish storms remain in the season summary until a later date (after it dissipates at the earliest, generally once info is available). Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I'm in the crosshairs of this storm and it's useful to me to have a page on each new storm as early as possible with a permanent URL so that I can refer my friends to that page. (Sobesurfski 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

Keep - It is now forecast to become a hurricane and tropical storm warnings have been issued for Puerto Rico and several islands. Hello32020 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Keep this page, Chris could be very interesting. Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, that isn't a good argument not to merge - Daniel was very interesting, but did nothing in the end. Chacor 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but as far as Chris is concerned, it seems to be developing very well, and can do something, but he hasn't dissipated yet. Lets see what he will do in the end. Alastor Moody _(talk) 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep as Chris is developing well and seems to meet criteria re: effect on land with warnings issued. Oh.. And I suggest a consensus exists. --Elliskev 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What you people have to remember is that the merge was proposed at a time when the article was nothing more than an exact copy of the seasonal section, and Chris was barely a 35kt TS which looked like falling apart. Chacor 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But you're forgetting - Chris gets an article simply for being an Atlantic tropical storm. It's what we do with all Atlantic storms now, even Tropical Storm Lee. :) Pobbie Rarr 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pobbie Parr is right, although the other basins may not have each storm getting its own article, but the Atlantic storms were agreed to have their own articles, wether devesating (Hurricane Katrnia), or having know effects to anything (like TS Lee from 2005). Alastor Moody _(talk) 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but eventually. Storms only get articles once they have land effects. At that time, and even as of now to some extent, there were no land effects. Yes, it was forecasted to move through the Lesser Antilles, but if it dissipated quickly and never regenerated, there'd be no point to have this article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Impact

Sorry if this is not supposed to be discussed but where do you think Chris will make landfall? I know right now it's hard to say and it all depends on where it goes from between now and next Monday. For me, I'm going to say it's going to stay close to the projected path and brush the Florida Keys and it might become a threat for those living in the Gulf of Mexico. That's not entirely all good news. Douglasr007 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Chris is where all the discussion is, let's keep this talk page for discussing the article. Chacor 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry about that. Thank you for leading me to the right direction. Douglasr007 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Chris dissipates...

Past history shows even waves and remnant lows are destructive in Hispaniola, especially Haiti (one in the spring of 2004 killed over 2,000 people) if they stall and produce flash flooding. We should continue to consider the page "current" until that is clear, even if the storm becomes a wave or low as a result. CrazyC83 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Elliskev 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that was weird

Is there precedent for hurricane-bound storms like this to basically peter out? (Yes I know it's still a major storm, but it ain't no Katrina.) I mean, a few days ago it was "batten down the hatches" in the US, but now it's more "grab the umbrella". Granted it could pick up strength again -- as Katrina did IIRC -- but it does seem weird how Chris was -- for a hurricane -- a non-starter. Yes I know there's discussion on this at the season article; I'm bringing it up here as a possible discussion point within the article itself. 23skidoo 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It never really was hurricane-bound. Remember, that at the start, the NHC's forecast of a high-end TS was conditional on the provisions that the environmental conditions would fall perfectly in place, which they seemed to do. Bearing in mind that at the start, Chris could well have dissipated as TD Three. Envrionmental conditions which the NHC said were around (which would have been detrimental to Chris) just kicked in a bit late. Chacor 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three words; Debby in 2000. That was forecasted to be a Category 2 hurricane in the Florida Keys, with the GDFL forecasting a Category 4 hurricane in the Keys, but it dissipated and did next to nothing in Florida. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, 926 mb was forecasted! This isn't nearly as extreme. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 23:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If this storm survive the entry into the Carribean or Gulf of Mexico, i doubt it will strenghten into a hurricane there. Irfanfaiz 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so much like 2000's Debby!!! Also I remember 2004's Earl - looked like it was going to follow Charley as a strong hurricane right to Florida, instead dissipated into an open wave... CrazyC83 03:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Phillipe of 2005? Even as a depression on the first advisory they (NHC) were predicting a borderline Category 2-Category 3 hurricane and it barely even held Category 1. Jake52 My Talk 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal - post-final advisory

Look at the article now. The storm is dead, it did almost nothing, and there's nothing here you can't mention in the main article. We should wait until the TCR comes out to resurrect this article, so that we have more info. But until then, we should merge it. Chacor 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Have also designated it a Start-Class article, but it's a very, very low Start. Chacor 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong merge. As far as I can tell from looking at Google News, Chris didn't really do anything significant. There'd be zero impact, and not much storm history since all Chris did was form, strengthen, and decouple in a very small distance. It also dissipated without really causing any effects at all. This isn't 2005, we don't need articles on absolutely every storm. However, I have no prejudice against recreation if more info is found, or when the TCR comes out (whichever comes first). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Storm history has all of the advisories, which can be made into 2, maybe 3 paragraphs. Preparations could include the evacuations and oil speculation. Impact could have the expected rainfall, and the PR river overflow. Then we could sum it up and say overall impact was minor. If we're going to have articles for all storms, might as well keep it around while the storm is still relatively new. We should also look forward to the preliminary storm report from the San Juan NWS to give some more info. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- WmE 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Every Atlantic storm will have an article after the season anyway. Good kitty 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a very convincing argument. After the season it'll have one because we'd have info from the TCR. Right now, there's no info that can't go to the seasonal article. Chacor 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

People, please try to state your reasons for wanting to keep. Just saying "keep" isn't conducive to a discussion. Chacor 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (at present). There is no information really at the moment. The storm history is one (massive) paragraph, but its length is misleading as it is way too wordy. A refactoring of the SH would give one paragraph, ideal for the seasons page. Then when more data becomes available recreate this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge for now. However, remember we will need what is currently in the article for the redevelopment later. Also if Chris regenerates (unlikely), the article should instantly go back up. CrazyC83 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We can easily fit more into this article than a brief summary on the main season article. I see no reason why it can't be more detailed, even at this stage. Pobbie Rarr 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an object lesson on why some storms don't make it. Find some educational information on the effects of shear and we've got an article that can be every good as the featured [Irene] article.--SomethingFunny 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Supporting SomethingFunny's reasoning, Dr. Steve Lyons at the Weather Channel has an interesting blog article on the factors which contributed to Chris going from potentially strengthening into a hurricane to fizzling out. TransUtopian 19:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. We're still doing the "most, if not all storms have articles" writing, so this could be put into shape, but only after stuff can be dug up. For now, I support keeping per SomethingFunny's reasoning. Jake52 My talk 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep to Moderate Keep. I agree what Hurricanehink said (see above). Also, maybe Chris' remants can do some damage in Cuba which can qualify for its own article, but on the other hand, maybe not. Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Per Hurricanehink. --Ajm⁸¹ 07:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tropical Storm Chris may redevelop.--71.242.31.120 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge, all the other storms so far this year have had articles, and all 28 tropical storms and hurricanes had articles last year, so this one should too. --Halibut Thyme 07:35, 7 August 2006
• Keep, we got this page already done and in-depth, why merge it and loose alot of the information? °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge -- To keep this article is ridiculous. The incredible amount of hurricanes in the past that deserve articles while T.S. Chris which did almost nothing gets one is the problem here. 71.234.60.6 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign in to have your vote counted. Also, you are welcome to start articles for all of those past hurricanes. Thanks. Good kitty 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and anons are welcome, so please avoid WP:BITE. Chacor 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing rude about my comment. Good kitty 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't in-as-much rudeness, just came across to me like it could've been phrased better, it's like saying "please register to have your opinion matter". Chacor 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If this list is going to be used to decide whether to merge or not merge, then all anonymous opinions shouldn't count. Good kitty 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should they not? This isn't a vote, like at AFD. While anons' votes at AFD don't count, their discussion and opinions may be taken into account. Same thing here. Chacor 05:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Some of these TS articles and hurricane fish spinners are arguably non-notable for full-fledged articles. But the creation of arguably NN articles has consensus among the project (I'm gathering — a pointer direct to that conversation would be helpful), we've got useful & verifiable information, and it can be expanded into something more interesting with the addition on why it seemed to be hurricane-bound but then poofed. Of course, the counterpoint is that such expansion could be added instead to another relevant article such as wind shear. TransUtopian 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• There hasn't been such a single discussion, its just something that was repeatedly discussed and has ended up with an FA on a fishspinner - Hurricane Irene (2005); the FAC has several links to discussions on the issue. The problem here is how this article was made was all wrong, it needs a ground-up rewrite. The only thing that made Chris at all unusual is that it is in 2006 and there has been insane interest in TCs... An article which would reach GA criteria is easily possible, but needs a bit of time to elapse (and the TCR).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention waiting until the storm is over so we know what it does. Hmm, this gives me an idea. I think it's time to bring the article discussion back up. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It may re-develop as it goes into warm water

In the weather sites, they say that Tropical Storm Chris might re-develop by the middle of the week, but it may not be as strong as the first formation. --9708191616 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SHOWER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMNANTS OF TROPICAL DEPRESSION
CHRIS HAS DIMINISHED AND REDEVELOPMENT IS NOT EXPECTED.

Says it all. Gone. Chacor 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Class

I think this article should be rated as a good article because it was tons of good info and is overall very organized. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you insist. I hope I did good enough of a job... Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its a very good written article of Chris. I like it. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Status

After reviewing the article in accourdance with the GA criteria, I am passing it through to Good article status. It is well written and referenced, etc. Eluchil404 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Decoupling loop

Hello. I am a new member at Wikipedia, and therefore I have no experience with editing articles. I have a loop (RGB) of Chris, decoupling due to heavy wind shear, which I think is relevant to the article. I have it hosted on Wikimedia Commons. You can find it here. (Whoa! I'm glad I got the hyperlink to work) Calamity21 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have added the loop in the article. If you feel it does not belong, please, remove it. Clamity21 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tropical Storm Chris (2006). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Outlook-A/2006080602.ABNT20
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Outlook-A/2006080609.ABNT20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703215146/http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2006/nat080306.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2006/nat080306.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000403/http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=313893&ssid=26&sid=ENV to http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=313893&ssid=26&sid=ENV
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.onamet.gov.do/onamet/Ftp/2006/Perspectiva/RESUMEN_FINAL_TEMPORADA_CICLONICA_2006_completo.doc

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)