Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Template:Hurricane

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please try to keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. See directly below for special discussion areas.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

Events Archive specific to months: June - July - August - September - October - November
Events Archive specific to storms: Katrina - Rita - Wilma

For specialized discussions of the 2005 season, see:
/Records - /Speculation - /Betting Pools - /Records Not Broken

Looks like the season is going into overtime once again! Anyone think this season will get a Christmas "present" in an active December? CrazyC83 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the season keeps up, (and, unfortunatly, I think it will), yes. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And it's finally December 1st on the East Coast. -- RattleMan 05:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which also means the official end of the season. And an amazing one at that. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The official end yes. The real end no. Only God knows when that will be. After all these Greek fraternities and sororities are still trying to do anything to get a part of history...since in 31 days, it's back to Alberto... CrazyC83 05:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pull-eaze...the Greek letter storms are not each a fraternity or a sorority,they are collectively one fraternity/sorority,each storm a brother or sister.Just like all the previous storms were each one "man" or "woman".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mpadams/56049.html

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATWDAT+shtml/271127.shtml? http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT/WATL/IR4/20.jpg http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT/watl-ir2-loop.html http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/ATSA_06Z.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet

Two low-level swirls are moving south into the mid-Atlantic tropics. Forecast suggests one will become a cyclone: one has more complete circulation; the other has the flare of a tropical wave. The models and the forecast favor the wave-looking cell to become Epsilon. Assuming that's the case, if the other one does anything, it'd become Zeta.

Models...

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/cmctc2.cgi?time=2005112712&field=Sea+Level+Pressure&hour=Animation http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/gfstc2.cgi?time=2005112712&field=Sea+Level+Pressure&hour=Animation http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/nogapstc2.cgi?time=2005112700&field=Sea+Level+Pressure&hour=Animation http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/ukmtc2.cgi?time=2005112712&field=Sea+Level+Pressure&hour=Animation

Three days from the end of the season and the tropics seem to want to go to the bitter end this year...that's 2005 for you! Could a December storm be in order? CrazyC83 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Delta left us a present: [1] look above the number 30 on the upper right. It looks interesting but I don't see it becoming anything, certenly not Epsilon. Follow the line under the 30 just off the page and there's Delta. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it means at the formation stage, but cyclone phase analysis of the models interprets it as warm-core. --AySz88^-^ 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the TWO:

A NON-TROPICAL LOW PRESSURE AREA IS LOCATED ABOUT 1050 MILES EAST OF
BERMUDA.  THIS SYSTEM HAS SOME POTENTIAL FOR SUBTROPICAL OR
TROPICAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.

This season just refuses to give up! - Cuivienen 15:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The backup site says 96L.Invest has formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.47.130 (talk • contribs)

The main Navy site is down (grrrrr...). NHC says the storm has gotten better organized but it still doesn't look too impressive on the sat imagery. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the season clearly doesn't want to end...could we see Epsilon extend the season out??? CrazyC83 02:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sat imagery has suddenly become less impressive... -- E. Brown

Wow, another record tied (most November storms)! This season just doesn't want to end. Could we hit 30 tropical depressions??? CrazyC83 15:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Delta's little brother, only they took a little longer to pull the trigger on Delta. With 3 storms we tied the November record, but does someone have the years we tied or am I gonna have to look that up? The Great Zo 17:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] 2001 had 3 and there were 2 in 1888, 1961, 1969, 1980 & 1994. crandles 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does 2005 Atlantic hurricane season have more cyclones in this year so far than 2005 Pacific typhoon season?

With Epsilon, we're again tied with the typhoon season at 26 storms. --Golbez 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing, what's the record for most number of storms in the east pacific, have we broken that yet? That would be really wierd. TimL 20:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain that the east Pacific record is 24, but I cannot say what year. (I am aware that the East Pacific name list was excatly exahausted one year, and as it has 24 names for each year, that must make the record for that basin 24.) --EMS | Talk 20:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The record Eastern Pacific season with 24 named storms is 1992. In addition, the current typhoon season has only 23 named storms, not 26. There are 26 entries on the Wikipedia page, but three are only depressions. (One depression was "named" for Filipino weather reports, but that doesn't count.) --DavidK93 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two of them were named. They also were not even depressions - only Invest-level storms - but PAGASA jumps the gun a lot. - Cuivienen 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting tidbit: if Q,U,X,Y,Z were not skipped, this would be the "Z" storm. Truly incredible. I think the season should be kept as a current event until the ball drops in Times Square. About the only record not broken was major hurricanes, and AFAIK there has never been one in December. CrazyC83 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say we pull the current events tag on time (midnight Eastern Thursday morning), but move it to the Epsilon section, and in the future, in the section of any active storm. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the new year's idea. With Epsilon and possible Zeta still going, that techinally means that the season itself is still active.209.62.224.245 02:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The season officially ends Thursday morning. We should give factual info, and the season will no longer be active come Thursday, de facto. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the current events tag? Isn't it to tell readers "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses"? So, as long as there is/could be an active storm to which would fall under "2005 Atlantic hurricane season", the event is still current. The official start and end of the season are arbitrary dates encompassing the time when most cyclones form. The only reason for us to remove the current events tag is if we decide to put any December storms into another article, like "2005 Atlantic off-season cyclones" or something. -PK9 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold says Wikipedia. I'm going to remove that tag come midnight Eastern and move it down to Epsilon's area, as the REST of the article is unlikely to have "rapid information change". I'll also change the infobox. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't want to get into an edit war, so unless someone else takes my side you win. But your reasoning is flawed. If that were the case, throughout the season we should only have had the current events tag on the active storm, be it Katria or Stan or Beta, etc. An active storm makes the season a current event. -PK9 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the season is still a current event. Just because it ended doesn't mean it's not a current event; there's still the aftermath to deal with. You wouldn't take the {{current}} tag away from Katrina the moment the storm dissapated would you? I believe today has seen more editing than most days of the season, because of the november summary. Information will continue to be updated rapidly as the end-of-season reports are released. That said, I have little interest in arguing about this; so long as the disclaimer is sufficient I don't care if {{current}} is used. And I fully agree with changing (most) information in the season to use the past tense. Jdorje 21:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made this post earlier but it somehow vanished without a trace. I had more info than this to. I'm so pissed I want to destroy something:

This is is crazy. We are now three storms ahead of the Western Pacific and there isn't even an invest there yet. Even the NHC guys are beginning to show fatigue. From the 10 am discussion:

...THE 26TH NAMED STORM OF THE APPARENTLY NEVER ENDING 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON.

This kind of activity is incredible in any basin, even the West Pacific (their average is about 18-20). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WPac's average is more like 30 a year, but if you count only June through November it's about 25. We do have a WPac invest right now. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bad news is, they expect another bad year in 2006. I think my prediction of 16 named storms might be a low one now... CrazyC83 15:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to CrazyC83 (first post in this section), we have tied for the most storms forming during November. Can we add that in to the article? 165.161.3.13 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! That is notable! 2001 was another year with three November storms (maybe more?) CrazyC83 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is sorta on the decline in convection wise. User:Benny Wags 22:22, 30 november 2005

Looks like a hurricane to me...I don't know why they have held it at tropical storm intensity...are they leery on upgrading a storm to a hurricane as we enter December? CrazyC83 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks very impressive on satellite imagery, lots of convection flaring up with good outer bands. It looks like strong Cat 1 hurricane to me. It even looks healthier than it did when they had it pegged at 70mph. 165.234.103.69 17:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The infrared looks pretty pitiful actually: [3]. Notice how there are very little thunderstorms in this thing. It talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now, it's a hurricane!! Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature ★ 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks even better on Satellite now, clearly formed eye with a good deal of convection considering the time of year and location. 165.234.117.42 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that he went up and down, I guess they finally gave in and declared Epsilon a hurricane. CrazyC83 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many Hurricanes have there been in December before? SargeAbernathy 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not many. There was Alice in 1954. Lili in 1984. There was one way back in 1887. I'm probably missing a few. Bottom line is that they are very rare. The surprises just keep on coming don't they? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog [4]: "Epsilon joins the ranks of Hurricane Nichole (1998), Hurricane Lili (1984), Hurricane Alice (1954), an unnamed 1925 storm, and an unnamed hurricane from 1887 as the only December hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic."--Jyril 17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the record for longest lasting hurricane in December..Epsilon doesn't seem to want to weaken. It has been a hurricane for 24 hours now.Weatherman90 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to get strengh information on these previous hurricanes?

GOING BACK TO 1851... HISTORICAL RECORDS INDICATE EPSILON IS ONLY
THE FIFTH HURRICANE TO FORM DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. OTHER
DECEMBER HURRICANES ARE... UNNAMED 1887... UNNAMED 1925... ALICE #2
IN 1954... AND LILI 1984. EPSILON IS ALSO ONLY THE SIXTH HURRICANE
TO EVER OCCUR DURING DECEMBER... INCLUDING UNNAMED 1887... UNNAMED
1925... ALICE #2 IN 1954... LILI 1984... AND NICOLE 1998.

21:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Check the Unisys archives. --Golbez 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin:

AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT...THIS EVENING'S QUIKSCAT
PASSES MISSED THE CYCLONE.  

Whee, sarcasm :D --The Great Zo 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart summed up the feelings of all of us when she said:

HOPEFULLY THE SOUTHWARD TRACK AFTER 72 HOURS THAT THE GFS...GFS ENSEMBLE... NOGAPS... AND GFDN MODELS ARE FORECASTING WILL NOT MATERIALIZE SO THE 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON CAN FINALLY END.

That's goddamn right. The NHC guys are probably about to die of exhaustion. They have been working 'round the clock for the past 5 months. Needless to say, they need a long frickin' break. A long frickin break from the long frickin' season that didn't allow anyone south of the Mason-Dixon Line anything resembling a break. Champagne corks might pop when Epsilon dissipates. A Weather Channel reporter put it nicely. He said, "Enough. It just needs to end. We're tired. We're tired of tropical cyclones, let's move on to blizzards or something." (He was covering Tammy by the way, when he said that!) -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....AN EYE CONTINUES 
TO BE EVIDENT ON SATELLITE WITH MODEST CONVECTION WITHIN 75 NM 
OF THE CENTER.  EVENTUALLY COOLER WATER AND SLOWLY INCREASING 
SHEAR SHOULD WEAKEN THE CYCLONE BUT AS SEEN YESTERDAY INTENSITY 
CHANGES ARE TOUGH TO FORECAST!
(Forecaster Blake)

Covering themselves? :p Though they're allowed mistakes, especially nowadays and with the storm nowhere close to land. --AySz88^-^ 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a little remark from a passer-by: In mathematics, (lower-case) epsilon is the Greek letter usually used to denote an extremely small quantity (and delta too if epsilon is already used elsewhere). So I myself think it is pretty cool to see the words "Hurricane Epsilon" side-by-side! Anyway, just a useless comment from someone studying too much mathematics… -- KittySaturn 08:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You filled in miles per hour in stead of knots ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.212.143 (talk • contribs)

I've made corrections on the table based on the table from the statistics discussion page. Since there was no other Episilon ACE table discussion here, I didn't want anyone to get confused and think those were the correct numbers. --PK9 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't know the ACE table was on the Talk: Statistics page, I assumed I was making the first one. Since there's no need for it here, I deleted the table (and my rather embarrassing comment). --Mark J 13:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

000
ABNT20 KNHC 010315
TWOAT 
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL 
1030 PM EST WED NOV 30 2005 

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO... 

THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IS ISSUING ADVISORIES ON TROPICAL
STORM EPSILON... LOCATED OVER THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC ABOUT 700 MILES
EAST-SOUTHEAST OF BERMUDA AND ABOUT 1615 MILES WEST-SOUTHWEST OF THE
AZORES ISLANDS.

ELSEWHERE... TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH
THURSDAY.

TODAY IS THE OFFICIAL END OF THE 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON...
AND THIS IS THE LAST TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK OF THE SEASON. 
ATLANTIC TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOKS WILL RESUME ON JUNE 1 2006. 
WHILE THIS IS THE LAST OUTLOOK...ADVISORIES ON TROPICAL STORM
EPSILON WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE STORM DISSIPATES.

FORECASTER BEVEN

Just for posterity... -- RattleMan 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be put in Wikisource? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Invests in the off-season? Or do off-season storms come up by surprise and by an NHC decision? CrazyC83 03:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TWDs are still issued offseason, are they not? NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - much of the discussion and update-notifications from my project were moved to Archive 6, here. The Great Zo 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of hard work, I finished the statistical research I had been working on, regarding various "earliest" records in regards to the Atlantic hurricane season. The project can be found here: http://pipsey.net:8080/~thegreatzo/hurricanes.html . Hopefully you can learn a thing or two from it; I sure know I learned a lot while I was digging through 150+ years of hurricane data to find all of this stuff out. The only incomplete portion is the Category-4 portion, which I will finish up eventually. Enjoy! The Great Zo 9 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Good work on the research. It's very cool for us "hurricane freaks". :) bob rulz 08:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic work on the records. People don't have a clue about the difficulty of the operation. 147.70.242.21 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 1st Storm - 132 days behind
• 2nd Storm - 43 days behind
• 3rd Storm - 25 days behind
• 4th Storm - 2 days ahead
• 5th Storm - 11 days ahead
• 6th Storm - 13 days ahead
• 7th Storm - 14 days ahead
• 8th Storm - 12 days ahead
• 9th Storm - 13 days ahead
• 10th Storm - 1 day ahead
• 11th Storm - 4 days ahead
• 12th Storm - 2 days behind
• 13th Storm - 6 days ahead
• 14th Storm - 4 days ahead
• 15th Storm - 9 days ahead
• 16th Storm - 9 days ahead
• 17th Storm - 10 days ahead
• 18th Storm - 1 day behind
• 19th Storm - 20 days ahead
• 20th storm - 17 days ahead
• 21st storm - 29 days ahead
• 22nd storm - still ahead of the old record for 19th
• 23rd storm - still ahead of the old record for 21st, and still ahead of 1995's 19th.
• 24th storm - just three days behind the old record for 21st
• 25th storm - just eight days behind the old record for 21st
• 26th storm - two weeks behind the old record for 21st
  

We've got Wilma. -- NSLE | Talk 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are officially tied with 1933 for the most active season on record. Congratulations. (Ho ray ho ray)

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 16:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E. Brown, why did you edit out my correction to "the curve" earlier, and completely remove the October 17 section I created? I double and triple checked the math - Wilma is 29 days ahead, not 30. If you want to claim 30, please at least back it up instead of simply removing my post. The Great Zo 21:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with 29. Oct 17 and Nov 15 are exactly 4 weeks and 1 day apart. 29 days. --Holderca1 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zo, I don't remember ever removing your post. I don't think I ever saw the post. This is the only edit of mine of this section that I could find [5]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, got it all cleared up. Thanks. It got reverted at some point after I removed two sections to the archive to clear up the main page a bit, and confused the heck out of me. The Great Zo 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After the incredible 2:30 AM update from the NHC, I've tentatively updated my Cat-5 research page to include new data on Wilma... and I'll clean it up and make sure it's all correct tomorrow morning after actual advisories are out. LINK -The Great Zo 06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated it. Wilma Cat-5 as of 09Z on Oct 19. 1st place overall for pressure. The Great Zo 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to uncharted territory now. It's all wilderness from here... CrazyC83 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I updated Alpha a few hours ago (whoops!) :D The Great Zo 03:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anddddddddddd hello Beta (updated!) The Great Zo 13:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archived a couple of sections. --The Great Zo 15:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gamma. The Great Zo 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Delta! Freiberg 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Site will be updated within an hour or so. --The Great Zo 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Storms are always welcome in the middle of nowhere. Tropical cyclones are kind of like bears: really cool, but wouldn't want to get too close. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon has arrived. Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature ★ 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup - and on the site. I'm getting sick of having to take five minutes to update it every few days. I have finals coming up, gimme a break already! ;) --The Great Zo 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the site updating the very minute that Epsilon formed...before NHC even had their graphics up. I had it all updated and then some goon came in and deleted it all, thinking that Epsilon hadn't formed yet. Really made me mad :(209.62.224.245 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

Here are the gaps we had without any tropical cyclones. Total time in the 2005 season: 67 days, 18 hours (37.0% of the time - another new record!). --Golbez 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC), CrazyC83 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC); Route56 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC); E. Brown 18 Nov; --Keith Edkins 16:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC), CrazyC83 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Delta lasts into December, or a late storm forms, how does that figure into the gap time as a percentage of the season? --Route56 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The time spent off-season won't count. CrazyC83 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Season started: June 1 0400Z.
• TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.
  • A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.

• HPC stops monitoring Arlene on June 13 2100Z.
• TD 2 formed: June 28 2200Z.
  • A gap of 15 days, 1 hour.

• Bret dissipates on June 30 0300Z.
• TD 3 formed: July 3 2100Z.
  • A gap of 3 days, 18 hours.

• Emily dissipates on July 21 1500Z.
• TD 6 formed: July 21 2100Z.
  • A gap of 6 hours.

• Franklin went extratropical on July 29 2100Z.
• TD 8 formed: Aug 2 2100Z
  • A gap of 4 days.

• Irene went extratropical on August 18 1500Z.
• TD 11 formed: Aug 22 1600Z
  • A gap of 4 days, 1 hour.

• Jose dissipated on August 23 1500Z.
• TD12 formed: Aug 23 1835Z.
  • A gap of three hours 35 minutes, rounded up to four hours.

• HPC stops monitoring Rita on Sept 26 0900Z.
• TD19 formed: Sep 30 2100Z.
  • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.

• NHC stops monitoring Stan on Oct 5 0900Z.
• Tammy formed: Oct 5 1130Z
  • A gap of two and a half hours, rounded down to two hours (as the call was likely made previously).

• HPC stops monitoring Tammy on Oct 6 2100Z.
• STD22 formed: Oct 8 1500Z.
  • A gap of 1 day, 18 hours.

• STD22 dissipated on Oct 9 0300Z.
• Vince formed: Oct 9 1500Z.
  • A gap of 12 hours.

• NHC stops monitoring Vince on Oct 11 0900Z.
• TD24 formed: Oct 15 2100Z.
  • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.

• NHC stops monitoring Wilma on Oct 25 2100Z.
• TD26 formed: Oct 27 0000Z.
  • A gap of 1 day, 3 hours.

• NHC stops monitoring Beta on Oct 31 0300Z
• TD27 formed: Nov 14 0300Z.
  • A gap of 14 days.

• TD27 dissipated on Nov 16 1500Z
• TD27 reformed as TS Gamma: Nov 18 2100Z.
  • A gap of 2 days, 6 hours.

• Gamma dissipated on Nov 21 0300Z
• Delta formed: Nov 23 2100Z
  • A gap of 2 days, 18 hours.

• Delta went extratropical at Nov 28 1500Z
• Epsilon formed: Nov 29 1500Z
  • A gap of 1 day.

• Season ended: Dec 1 0500Z, with Epsilon still active.

(Off-season storm time does not count here)

Yes, a subpage for every storm. It doesn't matter how "noteworthy" the storm was, it won't hurt anything for it to have it's own article. Furthermore, forcing these "unworthy" storms to stay on this page, and only allowing them one paragraph of information, is not what Wikipedia is about.

The new layout that I put together would siginificantly reduce the length of the page, which is far too large at the moment, and it would also organize it nicely, since it is quite the mess at the moment. Basically, the only section that would be affected is the Storms section, which is, of course, the largest. Below is what the new "storms" section would look like. Notice how the tracks, storms images, and descriptions have been consolidated to present a brief understanding of the storm, while the "more information" link will send the reader to the full article which will have more info on the storm.

Name	Description	Satellite image	Storm track
Arlene	Tropical Storm Arlene existed from June 8 until June 13, and affected the Cayman Islands, Cuba, and Florida. The only death attributed to Arlene was a woman caught in riptide in Miami Beach, Florida, far from the center of circulation.[6] (more information)
Bret	Tropical Storm Bret existed briefly from June 28 until it made landfall on June 29 in Mexico. Hundreds of homes were damaged, and several towns, including Naranjos and Chinampa, about 60 miles (95 km) south of Tampico, were severely flooded. The only reported fatalities were the two occupants of a car that was swept away by floodwaters in Naranjos. [7] (more information)
Cindy	Tropical Storm Cindy existed from July 5 to July 7, and affected the Yucatan Peninsula and much of the Southeast United States. Some parts of Atlanta Motor Speedway and Tara Field airport in Hampton, Georgia suffered severe damage from an F2 tornado spawned by the storm. Several places along the east coast recorded over five inches of rain. Three deaths were attributed to Cindy—two in Georgia and another in Alabama. (more information)
Dennis	Hurricane Dennis existed from July 5 until July 13, having made landfall in Cuba and Florida as a major hurricane each time. Overall, Dennis affect Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and the Ohio Valley region. Dennis claimed at least 70 lives: 44 in Haiti, 16 in Cuba, and 10 in the U.S. Also, more than 100 people were reported missing in Haiti. It is considered to be the worst hurricane to strike Cuba since Hurricane Flora in 1963. Total damages are estimated at $5-$9 billion USD. (more information)
Emily	Hurricane Emily existed from July 4 until July 13. Overall, Emily impacted Grenada, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Yucatán Peninsula, northeastern Mexico, and southernmost Texas. Emily is blamed for at least fourteen deaths; one in Grenada, four in Jamaica, seven in the rest of the Caribbean and two in Mexico. (more information)

This, or something like it, really should be done. --tomf688^{talk} 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely in favor of using subpages for more information, and just using a table to give the basic storm information. My own idea of the storm table was a little simpler; see User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Although I like having the two images be shown in the table...but given how much resistance there is to having them in the article now I suspect that might be difficult to convince people of. Jdorje 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me vaguely of my previous idea ("Radical Reorganization") - but this has less numbres and more text. Maybe yours is a better implementation. Nice job! --AySz88^-^ 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those against the use of subpages for non-notable storms might be less against using an actual sub-page like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Bret. Jdorje 05:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it; you're not supposed to use those kinds of subpages for that purpose (see above). --AySz88^-^ 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wikipedia about, Tom? Furthermore, it does actually hurt things. It implies the storms are more relevant than they actually are, it magnifies the number of pages and links to patrol, and it adds nothing. This is an encyclopedia and an almanac, but it is not a primary reference - most things that could be added to artificially inflate these articles will be found in the Tropical Cyclone Reports. Which means, for the minor storms, the outline we can provide does not justify its own article.

Second of all, using a table just .. doesn't seem right. The bulk of the article a table? What's wrong with paragraphs? (see next section)

Thirdly, please explain why it really should be done. See below. --Golbez 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages for every storm, including tropical depressions? Also remember - from Lee down, date modifiers aren't immediately necessary. CrazyC83 15:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except for cases like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, where there is no doubt that the storm name will be retired, I strongly support including the date modifiers immediately. Sooner or later, the retained names will be used again. As a matter of policy, it is much better to make things right the first time than to have to go back later and fix them up. As I see it, naming an article "Hurricane Maria (2005)" now is better than forcing people in 2011 to have to rename "Hurricane Maria" to that and then remove the redirect so that the Katrina-like Hurricane Maria of that year can be placed under that name. In fact, I see pages like Hurricane Ophelia as having jumped the gun in this respect. It really should be Hurricane Ophelia (2005) until and unless Ophelia is retired. --EMS | Talk 04:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how about just link to the ones that have articles:

Name	Description	Satellite image	Storm track
Arlene	Tropical Storm Arlene existed from June 8 until June 13, and affected the Cayman Islands, Cuba, and Florida. The only death attributed to Arlene was a woman caught in riptide in Miami Beach, Florida, far from the center of circulation.[8]
Bret	Tropical Storm Bret existed briefly from June 28 until it made landfall on June 29 in Mexico. Hundreds of homes were damaged, and several towns, including Naranjos and Chinampa, about 60 miles (95 km) south of Tampico, were severely flooded. The only reported fatalities were the two occupants of a car that was swept away by floodwaters in Naranjos. [9]
Cindy	Tropical Storm Cindy existed from July 5 to July 7, and affected the Yucatan Peninsula and much of the Southeast United States. Some parts of Atlanta Motor Speedway and Tara Field airport in Hampton, Georgia suffered severe damage from an F2 tornado spawned by the storm. Several places along the east coast recorded over five inches of rain. Three deaths were attributed to Cindy—two in Georgia and another in Alabama. (more information)
Dennis	Hurricane Dennis existed from July 5 until July 13, having made landfall in Cuba and Florida as a major hurricane each time. Overall, Dennis affect Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and the Ohio Valley region. Dennis claimed at least 70 lives: 44 in Haiti, 16 in Cuba, and 10 in the U.S. Also, more than 100 people were reported missing in Haiti. It is considered to be the worst hurricane to strike Cuba since Hurricane Flora in 1963. Total damages are estimated at $5-$9 billion USD. (more information)
Emily	Hurricane Emily existed from July 4 until July 13. Overall, Emily impacted Grenada, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Yucatán Peninsula, northeastern Mexico, and southernmost Texas. Emily is blamed for at least fourteen deaths; one in Grenada, four in Jamaica, seven in the rest of the Caribbean and two in Mexico. (more information)

--Revolución (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good ideas. Both of them. --Mark J 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... Read the proposal again, Revolucion. There wouldn't be any storms without articles. --AySz88^-^ 20:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how it could go into this article (only basic information - sample storm is Katrina, all storms will go into the table, separated by breaks):

	Satellite image	Storm track
bgcolor=Template:Storm colour cat5 align=center | Hurricane Katrina
Formed: August 23, near the Bahamas as Tropical Depression 12
Dissipated: August 31, over eastern Quebec, absorbed into extratropical low
Maximum winds: 175 mph (280 km/h)
Minimum pressure: 902 mbar
Affected: Bahamas (formation area), South Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Panhandle, long path on land across eastern North America
Fatalities: 1,300+
Damage: $70-130 billion (Costliest hurricane of all-time)

What do you all think? I could add more columns. CrazyC83 23:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the base for all the storms that I made: Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Sandbox CrazyC83 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

love it!!! ----

Oppose CrazyC83's tables in the revised Storms section. It is hard on the eyes, uses too much room, provides too much detail and gives too little information. tomf688's textual summaries work much, much better. (Look at it this way: For minimal tropical storm fish-spinner, the salient facts are very different than they are for something like Hurricane Katrina.) However, as a standard storm summary table this would be helpful in the individual storm articles. In that context, this table will help to give each article the depth and length needed to be justified as an individual article. --EMS | Talk 03:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the text summaries work better for 2005AHS but those tables are good infoboxes on the individual storms' pages. The information in Crazy's table goes across rows (breaking across the whole width) instead of organized in columns, which kinda negates most of the purpose. --AySz88^-^ 03:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a good idea? Subpages should be used sparingly. If we do this, it should stay 2005 thing, given the these storms are all part of a famous (infamous) season. Also, we CANNOT just reprase what's already said in the main article (a la Cindy). I like the Dennis article. It gives good detail without copying the main article. Katrina is good too when it's not being torn apart by vandals. The subpages should not outshine the main article. They should support it. If these requirements are not quickly met, I will merge the subpage(s) back into the main article. I don't want to be a subpage Nazi, but if I have to, I will. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying that 1310s is the main article of 1315. It isn't, 1310s is an overview of each year, just like 2005AHS is an overview of the year's storms. People have(had?) been trying to cram more details about each storm into the little space on this page, which just doesn't work, because this page gives overviews and we need some other place to put details. --AySz88^-^ 18:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would give the subpages the benefit of the doubt if I were you. However, it does seem to me that there needs to be a good delineation or responsibility between what is covered in the main article and what is covered in the individual storm pages. If everything that you would want to know about a storm can be summed up in a few sentences, then perhaps an individual article is not needed in that case (as is the case in the second example above). However, most of the current storm write-ups will not fit well in a tight table. --EMS | Talk 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tired of people copying and pasting from the main article. Then they say they'll change it but then they never do. Also having all those subpages would turn the main article into something completely alien from the rest of the hurricane articles. This should definately be just a 2005 thing if it's done at all. Simply because there is just so much information in one place. Other seasons, we should just keep doing what we've been doing. I will NOT accept a bunch of half-assed articles that just repeat or rephrase what the main article says. Also, the main article should be...just that, a main article. It should be the main focus of the subject. I like how Katrina's subpages were set up: a collection of articles under one supreme article. The main article should be the monarch. The subpages should be the subordinants. Let's not let the subpages take over now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really question the wisdom of saying that this should be the "main" article. To me, it's really like saying 460s is the "main" article of 463 - the use of a heirarchy to organize information doesn't imply that the super-page is more important than the sub-page.

We're also stuck in the middle of implementation - there isn't a place to move the details of storms without articles yet, and we can't shrink any of the sections on 2005AHS until the details are moved for all the storms (or there'd be an imbalance between descriptions of storms with seperate articles and without), and there's too much opposition (in my eyes, anyway) to create new articles - so the first thing to do is to get all this opposition settled and get something agreed upon (then move the details, then shrink this side so it's not just a "rephrase of the main article" anymore). I don't think you should call the articles "half-assed" yet when we're still figuring out what to do. --AySz88^-^ 04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of the discussions on how to remodel the page seem to be a solution looking for a problem. Can any of you first cite the shortcomings you see in the current layout and methods? There are so many discussions over things that NEED to be done, but never any justification for WHY. --Golbez 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, which we have repeatedly put forward, is that the article is way too long and full of irrelevant information. Jdorje 09:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorje, you seem to have reverted my attempts to remove some of that "irrelevant information". -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but you have also reverted my attempts to move some of that irrelevant information. Wikipedia is not paper: when the amount of information gets too large the correct solution is not to delete it but to organize it better, using a hierarchy of pages. Jdorje 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then trim the article of info that doesn't belong in a secondary reference. How does moving the info to individual storm articles make it any more relevant? The article needs a trim, not a redesign. First step: Remove the ACE table. There's little reason to deviate from the excellent examples supplied by the 1995 and 2004 season articles. I will say I kind of like how the storm and track images work in the tables, but the entire thing shouldn't be tabular. I am a little concerned of how it will look on a smaller monitor, but that's a minor concern. --Golbez 21:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information in the article is not relevant to an article about the "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" (in general) but would be relevant to an article about a single storm. I'm not sure how to explain the difference, but there is one. I don't see why we should have to restrict ourselves to the formats of 1995 and 2004. It doesn't have to be tabular either (the current format's pretty nice, actually). --AySz88^-^ 21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Storms section covers over half of the article! It seems to me that if you want to shorten it, you should focus on that which is taking up most of the room. Once you have cut that section down to size, then you can worry about other things if article size is still an issue. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that this article is full of irrelevant information, but that it is far too long. The average reader takes away little from this article because it is information overload. In the same fashion that some articles are split into subarticles because the page is 60, 90, or even more KB long, I feel this article should follow suit. Further, people will be more likely to expand articles on certain storms that may have been relatively long-lived but didn't affect land, or even weak storms that might have caused coastal erosion in Singapore or something crazy like that.

At any rate, The example I provided above is just that: an example. Stronger storms could have a longer piece, or the storms could be color-coded like in the template at the bottom of the page. As for the use of tables, I don't really see them as a problem. This is a website, not a paper book, and it can be used as such.

And last but not least... you don't think the storms section is a mess? :) --tomf688^{talk} 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just addressed my main concern which is the sloppiness of the images, and grouped them in tables in the article. Looks much less crowded now. --tomf688^{talk} 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an improvement, but I very much prefer the overall tabular form that you proposed above. That really gets the Storms section under control, placing twice as many storms on a screen as the current format does. The reorganization of the images is mostly window dressing, while the tabular form creates a much more readable and managable article. --EMS | Talk 04:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much agreed, the level of detail on this page is far more than desired for a person looking for an overview of the season but likely less than desired for a person looking for information about specific storms. To shorten this article, I feel the details should be moved instead of removed from the article. --AySz88^-^ 16:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at the NHC summary on Tropical Storm Gert; they present two pages of info before they start with the tables. This is just one example of how much longer articles could be, even on short-lived storms. --tomf688^{talk} 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm starting to agree that we can get all this information - enough for separate articles on ALL storms, including fish-spinners. This could be an off-season project when we aren't dealing with major blizzards, spring tornado outbreaks or other weather phenomena...we would also have to change around past seasons. The report on the forgettable Gert proved it. CrazyC83 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, this is not the point being argued by the other side. THEY think that some storms aren't notable, therefore they don't want that information in wikipedia. -PK9 01:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE in Wikipedia, in the main article. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the additional information that forces the main article to be too long, making the individual article for a storm long enough to justify its existence based on the criteria of length. Those that want the criteria to be notability also want a shorter main article, so certain information would not be allowed to be anywhere on wikipedia. -PK9 01:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just copy and paste it then? It is public domain, after all. What's wrong with offering an outline, then linking to the primary reference? Why do we have to have every single bit of information? --Golbez 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that we shouldn't make an article about X because people can look up information about it elsewhere? The Wikipedia article on a subject may turn out to present the same information in a much more accessible way. --AySz88^-^ 21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying have an article with the basic information, and link to the TCR for the hardcore numbers. You CAN have too much information in an article, making it difficult to see the forest for the trees. --Golbez 23:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, great job with the images. It looks MUCH better. Hurricanehink 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Golbez here. AySz88, how is the fact that half the page is taken up by storm descriptions irrelevant? Note: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The storms themselves are the season, not just some sidethought while we focus on...wait, there is nothing else to focus on! It wouldn't be a hurricane seasons without the tropical cyclones. I think we should just stick with what we had originally for subpages. If there's too much information to fit smugly on the main page, then you create a sub-page. Personally, Vince and Beta shouldn't have subpages. Otherwise, how we have it now is fine. I wouldn't put anymore than 2 paragraphs on a storm on the main page. 2004 and 1995 are prime examples of how a hurricane season article should look. We don't need suppages. We don't need more specific information than we have now, therefore, we don't need separate subpages except for the ones we have already. bob rulz 08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you missed my explanation involving levels of detail. To summarize it: into this single article, you're trying to fit three levels of detail: the introductory overview of the season, the full overview, and then a description of each individual storm. You can't satisfactorily include all the pertinent information about individual storms in an article about the season as a whole - the real point of this article is the season summary, not the storm summary. Information in this particular article (2005 Atlantic hurricane season) has ended up being gauged on notability to the season, not the storm - even though the information is notable enough that it should be kept somewhere in Wikipedia. So those details should not be removed, but moved (and where else but in a seperate article about the storm?).

Adding more levels into a single article increases article length exponentially. Most articles have two levels of detail (introduction, and then details about things talked about in the introduction). Currently, there's a conflict between satisfactorily explaining each storm and keeping this article's size down (i.e. too many levels of detail), and splitting away a level of detail into seperate articles solves both problems.

My original suggestion was to let the current blurbs serve as introductions to individual articles and then flesh out those articles, leaving very brief overviews (a couple sentences) behind in 2005AHS. Since doing that right now would cause an imbalance in the length of descriptions of between storms with and storms without main pages, the beneficial effects on 2005AHS of giving each storm its own page probably can't be seen yet.

If you want to talk about whether the storms are really "notable", see the AfD for Tropical Storm Cindy, and Wikipedia is not paper. (That is, the storms are more notable than what else is on Wikipedia, and what's the harm in keeping information?)

I think you pointed out the problem yourself: You say you wouldn't have any more than 2 paragraphs per storm on the "main" page (I'd argue that the individual storm articles are the real "main" pages, and this article serves as a portal), but each storm has more notable information than what can fit in 2 paragraphs; just look at what the NHC managed to do with Gert and Arlene. --AySz88^-^ 16:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that very many people are going to care about what's in those tropical cyclone reports. Putting all of the information from those tropical cyclone reports into their own separate articles; that is simply too much information that very few people would ever care about. As I mentioned before, the information we currently have in storm articles, and then the overview of information we have on each individual storm (note: the storms make up the seasons; season summaries won't cut it) is almost perfectly balanced the way it is at the moment. People are fretting too much over the length of the article! There are quite a few very well-written pages on Wikipedia longer than this one! bob rulz 07:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point; you said it yourself that all we have right now are overviews of each storm - and that's all that can fit here. (Unless you suggest writing article-length descriptions in 2005AHS?) --AySz88^-^ 16:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All we need are overviews. This should not be a formal lecure in meteorology. We just want people to get the jist of it. How many people care about boring storms like Lee, Franklin and Harvey? Very few. Therefore, discussion about them should be kept to summery form. If you are trying to create an article on a storm and all you seem to be able to do is fill it with stale, tedious and menial info then the article should no be created. It would serve no point. I agree completely with Bob. Also I've noticed a severe lack of word economy in this article. For example: "A tropical wave developed a low pressure area in the northwestern part of the Caribbean Sea and strengthened into a tropical depression..." Jesus people, short and sweat. No stuttering. "A tropical wave organized into a tropical depression on [date] in the northwestern Caribbean Sea." That is much better. It uses half the words and accomplishes the same thing. I found stuff like that all over this article (and fixed them). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i've found this on the unisys weather site. Tell me if this should go up now for public interest. weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.91.5 (talk • contribs) 03:07, November 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can use those, those seem to be copyrighted. --AySz88^-^ 03:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The National Hurricane Center releases public domain track maps at the end of each season anyways. --tomf688^{talk} 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of Contents for this page is enormous. Unacceptably so, in my opinion. I've created an alternative ToC that takes up far less room. I want to present it here first to make sure it meets approval and see what people think could be changed for the better. I think it covers everything and could be put at the top of the page.

{{ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}}

-- Cuivienen 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my (beta) version of the ToC here. -- RattleMan 06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both of these options and with the opinion that it's too long. For one thing, both options omit the storm strength from the ToC. --Golbez 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the ToC tell the strength of the storms? Isn't that the purpose of the storms section? The ToC is just a navigational tool, not a source of information. -- Cuivienen 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It offers much more context than just a name, thus aiding navigation within the article. (Note that this was one of my complaints with the button bar - they lacked context, giving you only a color and a letter.) --Golbez 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better with the 3 boxes at the top put side by side? ie left, centre, and right aligned. crandles 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should get into making such layout decisions. Also, it would split apart the hurricane infobox and the SS scale, even in its original smaller form, thus requiring about as much whitespace as we have now - in other words, no change in length, but with less information and IMO poorer layout. --Golbez 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like the button bar issue again. There has to be a way to make something small enough to please everyone, without loosing all the information. People tend to use memes (uniform colors, well known cues, political preferences) to provide this additional information, but if one wants to provide the information without these additional cues, and just direct text, it becomes unweildly, yet provides enough information. If one provides no cues, and just text, it is small and tiny, but no context. The unfortunate problem is wikipedia tooltips cannot be uniformly applied, and the nature of HTML itself prevents one form providing expandable information without an additional standard like javascript. Anyone got any ideas? Status bar messages have been eliminated due to their ability to insert malicious code. Javascript cannot be applied indvidually to an article, and hovering tool tips are hard to apply, because links always float above divs or table cells.--Ctrl build^{[[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]]} [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed reformating above would reduce the TOC size by eliminating the storm subsections. Another option would be to replace the "===" surrounding the storm titles with "<h3>" and "</h3>". This would create the same visual effect but would eliminate the individual storms from the TOC. As for the proposed revised TOC: I find it to be dense and clumbsy. Let's deal with the underlying issue, namely that the storms section itself is a mess, and one way or another needs to be tabularized. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with tabularizing it, every solution I've seen looks ugly (IMO) and doesn't help the supposed problem at all. I don't think we should be using hacks, either. What's wrong with having a long article and a long ToC? --Golbez 17:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ToC is, ultimately, what's causing the excess of white space at the top of the article. With a smaller ToC we can move the SS scale into the summary section and have a reasonably small amount of white space at the top of the page. -- 168.229.34.40 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ToC is too long because the article is too long. Wikipedia is not paper; there's no reason not to use structured articles here. Jdorje 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I disagree with both TOCs above. If we either took out the == == heading format, or convert to the tabular format above, this problem would be solved since the TOC would be much shorter. --tomf688^{talk} 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the ToC would leave no way to navigate the article, and is not a solution. Jdorje 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about the button next to the name - second one in User:AySz88/Sandbox? It gives the strength of the storm, like Golbez wants. --AySz88^-^ 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (Oh, that's only a rough idea, so don't just dismiss it because it's ugly.) --AySz88^-^ 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the above options, but I still prefer the normal ToC. For one thing, as I've said about the button bars, it relies too much on categories. "Oh, "S" whatever S is was white, must not have been major." At least the normal ToC is somewhat neutral on that front (Before you ask - there is a structural difference between tropical storms, tropical depressions, and hurricanes, but not so much between a category 1 and a category 3). I do not want to assume the reader can figure out the colors, or categories, or what not; I only assume the reader knows how to read, which is why I tend to dislike the tabular options here. There is still such a thing as prose on this pedia, rather than rote information. (And then there's the obvious accessibility concerns - using color as a method of imparting information is frowned upon, not everyone using Wikipedia can see/has color.) --Golbez 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about using "TS" / "TD" / 1-5 instead of the initials, or add a column for number of deaths? --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not liking the direction this is going. Let's try not to divert too far from the standard. --tomf688^{talk} 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe just split it into columns for now? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be objectionable. --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see creating a 4-column TOC, with one entry per cell. The leftmost column would navigate people to the main sections. The next three would navigate people to the storms. With nine navigation rows per column, you would have rows 2 and 3 full with the A - T stroms, and the V, W, and greek letter storms in the last column. It may look nice.

On the other hand, do not go off adding statistics to the TOC. That is not what it is there for. What you can do is to create a season overview table, with one storm per row. The columns could be dates, maximum winds, lowest pressure, landfall(s) (when, where, storm stregth at landfall). Perhaps one of you may wish to play with this.

Finally do note that I thank that the best way to deal with the Storms section is to tabularize it as shown above. Note that this would not conflict with the breifer table that I am suggesting here, since the two would contain different information. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good idea in the least. Wikipedia has a standard TOC box used in every article, and it is not necessary or wise to make one specifically for this article. If the TOC is too long, it should be a message to you that either A) the article is too long and needs to be split into subpages, or B) there are too many subheadings. --tomf688^{talk} 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subheadings for the storms and replaced them with plain, bold, size 4 text in hopes that it will resolve the TOC issues. --tomf688^{talk} 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's just me, but I reverted it because it caused the SS templated to merge with text. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No issues for me. If anyone else wants to test it, it's located here: [10] --tomf688^{talk} 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't correct - see Wikipedia:Section#Compact_TOC. I interpret that to mean you're allowed to condense long ToCs into lists. --AySz88^-^ 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with changing the ToC at all. It's fine the way it is. It is a navigational tool, and removing the subheading would make it harder to navigate. bob rulz 08:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed mine up a bit - second one at User:AySz88/Sandbox. Feel free to edit and suggest improvements. It really condenses the size of the ToC vertically. --AySz88^-^ 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists the death toll as either 2779 or 2854+. The problem is this value isn't verifiable. I added a {{fact}} to this value, but someone removed it claiming the citations were in the Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Stan articles. Well, they aren't: the values in those articles only add up to about 2400. The total here comes from so many sources that it is hard to verify; today somebody updaed it from 2779 to 2854 - based on what? Who knows. The solution is to make a "deaths from storms" table. Each entry can be easily verified and the total can be easily added. The table below is a start - once this is completed it can be added to the article and then I'll stop complaining. Jdorje 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Season Fatalities

Storm	Deaths
Arlene	1
Bret	2
Cindy	3
Dennis	71
Emily	14
Jose	8
Katrina	1325+
Maria	1
Ophelia	3
Rita	119
Stan	1153+
Wilma	60
Alpha	26
Gamma	37
Delta	7
Total	2830+

As a starting point, This edit has an edit summary that says ".... Katrina (1,322+), Stan (1,153+), Rita (119), Dennis (71), Wilma (60), Alpha (26), Emily (14), +Others. Together the toll is 2779+". I haven't checked the article to verify, and that's still missing 14. Wikipedia is being very slow right now. --AySz88^-^ 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added some other storms. Hurricanehink 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be ordered by death toll or by name? If by name, then we can add other stuff to the table (like User:Jdorje/table), though eventually it will become large and bloated. Jdorje 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC will release death toll summaries at the end of the season. Truthfully, though, we may never have an exact figure, so this may be a moot argument. --tomf688^{talk} 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added Gamma (8) to the list and removed the question marks from the other storms as each of those is cited in its article. -- Cuivienen 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma really should have 16 deaths to it. Eleven in Hondorus, 3 in Belize, and 2 as a TD in the caribbean. [11] tdwuhs

Should Maria be added? It was extratropical at the time. Even though it is one death, should it be counted? Hurricanehink 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. If they determine that Tammy (or TD22) was the culprit in the flooding in New England, those deaths should also be included. Also should the zero-fatality storms (Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Lee, Nate, Philippe, Tammy(?), Vince, Beta and the TD's) be included to show the statistics clearly? CrazyC83 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Gamma has now surpassed Tropical Storm Alpha's death toll with 34 confirmed deaths. Does this make it notable enough for a separate article? Any article written about Gamma could be at least as long or longer than any article about Alpha. I suppose the real question is then whether Alpha really deserves an article or not as Gamma certainly does if Alpha does. -- Cuivienen 01:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't create it, but wouldn't rush to delete if it a Gamma article is created. CrazyC83 02:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create an article, feel free to do so. No harm is done by creating one, and it will only encourage more information to be added to it. --tomf688^{talk} 03:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tropical Storm Gamma. It needs a picture but otherwise looks good. -- Cuivienen

No objections from here, the article over there is quite long, and the storm is at least slightly more notable than Alpha. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against creating more and more storm articles! Whatever's in the article is enough, Alpha, Beta and Gamma should all be merged back in. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I know it's probably not in good faith, but I am very tempted to merge the Cindy artcile. Beta did not deserve an article. Alpha: by the skin of it's teeth, Ophelia: the same. Vince: Him too. The only storms that really deserve an article are Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma. I know Gamma killed 34 people (that went up in a hurry!) but...it's Honduras. Don't take that the wrong way, but the facts stand: the place is dirt poor. I know that sounds cold, but that's the way it is. Gamma damage there is about as common as Ophelia damage is here. Same with Alpha and Haiti. Some of these article are gonna have to go. I don't get why people seem to have such a subpage fetish around here. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because splitting articles is cheap and it is a good way to prevent information loss? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And is an effective means of shortening this excessively long article. --tomf688^{talk} 21:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For I personally think that separate articles for any landfalling storm is legitimate if someone wishes to write it, as this can leave the main season page with a summary and allow those who wish to add further information relating to the storms effects etc essentially a free hand to do so. This is also my view re the discussion re separate pages for tropical storms below. Nashikawa 22:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about fish-spinners? 216.221.81.98 02:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the current 2005AHS page, the more convinced I become that individual storm articles will be a good thing for this year and going forward. The reason is that enough people are now involved with this subject that the information on each storm is plentiful. Just compare the 2005AHS article to the 2003AHS article. Not only are there more storms, but more is being said about each one!

Is seems to me that for the 2005AHS to be manageable, we need to say less about each storm in the article itself, but then why should all of the work of other be lost? I would therefore shorten up the 2005AHS write-ups but start in most cases individual storm articles. (I see no reason to do individual articles about tropical depressions and non-landfalling tropical storms, but certainly all hurricanes can and should have thier own articles.)

Let's look on this as a shift in what the Wikipedia community can produce, and support that change properly. I see no need to go back and update the prior storm years to conform to this new standard (not that I would discourage anyone willing from doing so), but going forward we need to realize that this community can and will provide ample documentation on each new storm, and that this documentation will often be voluminous enough to justify a seperate article. --EMS | Talk 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against such a thing, many of them were NOT NOTABLE. It's lucky we don't classify storms humans, I'd tag such articles CSD/A7. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 06:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're two different things completely. I spend my days at WP:DRV, and I know that CSD A7 is designed to stop vanity articles from overrunning Wikipedia. The hurricane articles are nowhere even close to vanity. If they require Hurricane Maria (2005) year modifiers, well, give them so! The only time I think an individual storm article should not be written is when there is not enough information to write on the article; then, the main season page is fine. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I do not see a reason why a few of us are so inclined to limit the amount of information we can put into wikipedia. Afterall, isn't the purpose of wikipedia to let everyone edit and present the information? We pride ourselves on the number of [good] articles we have. If you ask me, I think what makes an article good is one in which at least a few can contribute some information. It would be impractical to fit everything into one gigantic page, so separating some notable TS should be encouraged. SiriusAlphaCMa 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria wouldn't require a year modifier, although it wouldn't hurt to add it. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Alpha and (if it forms) Delta are the only ones that definitely require year modifiers as they have (or will have) disambiguation pages and weren't notable enough for the main article on their own (like Dennis, Emily and Katrina were). Tropical depressions should always have a year modifier though as they happen frequently of that number (every year if they reach that number, although usually they will get named).

I strongly believe that we should always use a year modifier on storm names initially. If a storm's name is retired, then the corresponding article can be renamed to exclude the modifier. If there has only been one storm with that name, the unqualified name can point to that storm instead of the disambiguation page. The only other exception should be to have the unqualified name point to the page for the current year's storm if that storm was quite notable, as it is reasonable to suppose that a request for "Hurricane Emily" (for example) will be intended to retrieve "Hurricane Emily (2005)". I really feel that this should be a policy for storm pages. --EMS | Talk 16:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, once the NHC reports come out, we get a whole lot of new information on even the least notable storms. CrazyC83 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles that have not been at least attempted are Bret, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe and Tammy. Of those 11 storms, six were fish-spinners, one did the damage as extratropical, one hit Florida as a weak tropical storm (not unusual, although its aftereffects have a separate article semi-related to the storm that could be redirected) and three were ordinary tropical storms in Mexico.

If articles for those were to be created, some would need (2005) year modifiers: Bret, Gert, Harvey, Irene and Jose. The others wouldn't as they wouldn't be breaking a disambiguation page and the main article is a redirect to the 2005 page (used for the first time in 2005). CrazyC83 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And, I believe we should add year modifiers to all non-retired storms. Jdorje 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At one point I was on the notability bandwagon, but I've since hopped off of it. This article presents too much information, and should only be presenting the major points of each storm in a paragraph or two, even for major storms like Katrina (damage, death toll, economic impacts, etc, etc). This article is far too long. --tomf688^{talk} 21:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

There seems the be a consensus here for doing this reorganization. My preference is to use the format suggested by tomf688 above. I think that there is also broad agreement for naming the articles with " (2005)" included where they do not already exist. My suggestion is that we let Tom implement this as soon as he can. --EMS | Talk 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa! I detest the table idea! We should keep it in summery form like we've always done. The reason we don't want articles on non-notable storms is because there is little interesting information about them. All we can do is fill them with stale, tedious and menial info that no one will want to read. For Franklin, Harvey, Irene, Lee, Nate, Philippe, and Delta; you would only have basic information: formation, formation date, time of existance and intensity. None of these caused any damage. The articles would only have information that is best in the main article. No meat like preparations, evacuations, damage, relief efforts, recovery, nothing. Just skin and bones. A skin-and-bones article cannot survive. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a good question of how much data we want to keep where. I am not convinced that Irene and Delta are not deserving of their own articles, for instace. I agree that if the individual storm article says not more about a system than the main article does that the former is redundant. IHowever, I do not accept the presumption that this would normally be the case. At the least, all of the current main article storm summaries need to be shortenned for the sake of the article as a whole. That really begs the question of what to do with the excised details. --EMS | Talk 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have 100% Support from me, The more info we can provide, the better. Don't start talking about how people are bored by it. It's not like they are forced to view it. If it bores you, dont click the link.Weatherman90 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (User's third/fourth edit, and first to this page NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 03:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Can you given any reasons why Delta and Irene deserve articles? What sets them out from the rest. Arlene, Cindy, Alpha and Beta mostly just restate what the main article already says (dealt with Arlene already and Cindy's next if that article isn't beefed up in a hurry). Those remaining three articles are skin-and-bones articles. They need to be beefed up or merged. Emily, like it; Dennis, love it!; Katrina, too long but otherwise detailed and well written; Ophelia, not much meat/needs beefing; Rita, love it!; Stan, like it; Vince, needs some beefing but otherwise good; Wilma, love it!. All fish spinners, with the possible exception of Maria, absolutely do not deserve articles. If someone could write convincing, detailed, and interesting articles on Arlene, Bret, Jose, or Tammy, I could be persuaded to change my mind about them. Gert is the only landfalling system that absolutely does not deserve an article. It did next to nothing. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

100% in agreement. There would be no point to an article for Lee, Gert, and other non-notable storms. Hurricanehink 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with this idea that articles have to be long or "beefy" (short article != bad article, as long as the article is fleshed out) or that any of these storms are not "notable" enough to have an article (I really truly doubt any of the storm articles would be defeated in an AfD, even Gert). We shouldn't lose sight of the overall context - i.e. this is Wikipedia. You seem to be 'notability' between tropical storms only and ignoring notability rules in the rest of Wikipedia. Saying that these storms aren't notable is like saying a third-party candidate in a presidential election isn't notable, or a Californian representative in the U.S. House isn't notable (sure, they have lots of them, but that doesn't mean they're not notable). Besides, this 'notability' thing should take a backseat to making the articles more usable, such that those details are can be moved somewhere. If you truly feel the information should be taken out entirely, that seems to be a minority view.

To me, Delta's far more than notable enough (perhaps even notable for you) for being a storm that has been the only storm to reach within 500 miles of the Canary Islands as tropical and hit it as extratropical (according to Jeff Masters). It's also destroyed some landmarks there, like "God's Finger". All the details which are getting cramped here (and a lot of formation details) would fit well on another article.

As for Irene, all that really matters to me is that it's notable enough for an article, which at least gives us a place to move details and expand. --AySz88^-^ 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one storm named Delta previously: in 1972. Since it would lead to a forced disambiguation, here is how I think it should be handled:

1. Once Delta forms, a disambiguation page, Tropical Storm Delta (disambiguation), should be written with the links to 1972 and 2005.
2. If Delta warrants an article, it should go to Tropical Storm Delta (2005) (or Hurricane Delta (2005) if necessary); the date modifier would be required.
3. Only if Delta is really a notable storm (would be retired if it is named normally) should it get the main article.

Basically, it should be treated like any other storm that has had its name used. It is unusual to talk about it at this point, but instantly giving it the main article when not required would isolate the 1972 storm. CrazyC83 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jdorje 07:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Tropical Storm Delta (disambiguation)? Subtropical storms aren't the same thing as tropical storms, so the title presents the false impression that there are other storms named Tropical Storm Delta. Tropical Cyclone Delta (disambiguation) would be better. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced re the need for a disambigution page when one was Subtropical Storm Delta and the other Tropical Storm Delta. A cross link between the pages is another way to handle this. Nashikawa 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think a disambiguation page is needed. I agree with the above --Revolución (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is general precedent to use the highest level a name reached in its name disabiguation page if all basins have compatible prefixes. Since tropical storm is the highest the name Delta has currently reached, I vote for Tropical Storm Delta. The precedents are Hurricane Nicole and Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation). Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with arguing disambiguation isn't needed between tropical storms and subtropical storms is that you have to find the line somewhere at which disambiguation is needed. Is disambiguation needed between a Hurricane and Typhoon with the same name? What about a Hurricane, a Typhoon, and a Tropical Storm? What about a Cyclone and a Tropical Cyclone? Because each basin uses different criteria for naming (and this criteria changes over time), I think the only way to disambiguate named storms is by name, not by type. Jdorje 01:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may become a moot point as it may have to change to Hurricane Delta (disambiguation) soon. CrazyC83 17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people complaining about the length of the page? There are TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones this season. Of course the article is going to be long. Expecting an article about TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones not to be long is kind of like expecting water not to be wet. If the 1983 Atlantic hurricane season article was as long as this one, then we'd have a problem. This is not the 1983 season. This is the 2005 five season. There are TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones this season. It is a given that the article is going to be long.

Now that that's over with, there are several things that can be changed with zero loss to the article:

• The archive links in each storm section. People don't need their hands held that much. One link in the external links section should be enough. People who are able to navigate this page should be able to use an NHC/HPC/Preliminary Report link page. And Wikipedia is not a web directory.
• The records section. It mentions that Wilma is the fastest-intensifying tropical cyclone on record. Hold on and think for a moment. Does that make the storm notable, or does that make the season notable? I think not. Does Super Typhoon Forrest being the formerly most rapidly intensifying tropical cyclone make its season more notable than any other typhoon season?
• Some repetitive passages. It says at least twice in the article that this is the first season to use Greek letters for naming. Is that really necessary? And the main article link in the storm names section has to go. No other seasons have it.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I wrote above. The problem is more than the number of storms or presense of additional links. Instead it is the level of interest in this page, which has made each storm subsection much bigger than those for the previous years. Compare this page to the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season page. Note how much breifer the write-up on each storm is. That is what we need to get back to, but without an excessive loss of content. You have some good suggestions, the they are window-dressing compared to the more substantial issue of how to organize all the contect that the editors are providing on this storm season. --EMS | Talk 00:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the complaints is that the article is too long. It doesn't matter how much material it has to cover; articles that are too long need to be split up. Jdorje 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the debate, isn't it? Do the articles need to be split up, or do they need to be condensed? I'm in favor of splitting up, but others want information to be cut out and replaced with an external reference. PK9 21:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting it up would be like breaking up a puzzle and calling it finnished, that won't fly. The article is not that long. 66 kb is not that long. This talk page was 150 kb long at one point and no one said a word about that. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The button bar's getting to be a bit long... NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a problem until it fills the entire bottom of the screen, which would only hyappen if we have 4 or 5 more storms (highly unlikely). -- Cuivienen 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running Firefox with bookmarks constantly open (however squeezed as small as possible). The bar makes the page width grow. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the button bar will stretch the screen with Favorites/Bookmarks open - that's almost a given. However, that shouldn't be a consideration when formatting the article as non-standard screen sizes will always cause problems with Wikipedia formatting. If the button bar stretches the screen when the page fills the entire window, then there's a problem. - Cuivienen 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I split the row into two; if anyone thinks that's a bad idea (I personally can't think of any reason), then feel free to revert and discuss. --AySz88^-^ 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For now it works. It might be a problem if another storm forms. - Cuivienen 03:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a recommendation on the Button Bar? (don't know why I'm asking, I'm going to do it anyway) For the greek letters Gamma and Delta, I would suggest putting those in uppercase, since they are unlike any of the Roman letters used during the course of the season, unlike Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon, which are pretty much the same as A, B, and E in the uppercase form. In my opinion, due to the conflict between Roman and Greek letters, the lowercase forms of Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon are more recognizable anyway, and the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta are far more recognizable than their lowercase counterparts. - RPIRED 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to center the second row under the top one? It looks bad for the top row to have a hanging edge. Also the colors of the buttons run together. There needs to be a space between the rows. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there's a one-pixel gap. There might be a way to make the gap more than one pixel wide, but I can't seem to figure it out, though if anyone knows, it might be a good idea (the same gap should probably also be between the header and the first row, for balance). --AySz88^-^ 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove the ACE section. It's at best marginal trivia, as knowing what each individual storm's ACE is relevant to very, very few people, who can do the analysis themselves with the tropical cyclone report. Comments? --Golbez 16:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if the ACE is mentioned in the summary of each storm? It is useful to give a quick indication of the duration/intensity of a storm. (In fact next to the name of each storm we could have in a smaller font, its duration (in hours?) min pressure, and max wind. TimL 18:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ACE column in the table in am created (as described just below). I for one kind of like the ACE being tracked, but I agree that this section is not buying us much, and should be removed soon. At the least, ranking the storms by their ACE is quite trivial. Even so, this is information that should be available somewhere, but probably not in a stand-alone fashion. --EMS | Talk 19:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the ACE section. It's a nice, short summary of the overall power of each storm. Honestly, it is the main thing I come to this page to check. -- Rylan42 06:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded A435(m) 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed to an extent. While the information is interesting, how many people know what those magic numbers mean? How many people care to find out? Those figures are meaningless to the average person. The description of ACE given in the section does not tell the reader how to interpret the numbers (i.e. what's good and what's bad). So what point do they really serve? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of just about any information in an encyclopedia. I'd never heard of ACE values until reading that section on this page. All I know about them I have learned from wikipedia (on this and the ACE page). Thus if this information is misleading, then I am sure I have a poor conception of what the values are. However, I think the ACE page is fairly clear in explaining. Maybe I'm a stats junky, but that information is the main thing I return to this page for (sadly, several times a day whenever there is a storm going). -- Rylan42 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the ACE section, however, I think it would be nice if the people updating it understood the concept of significant figures. The article tends to say things like "... ACE, given to three significant figures. The total for the season up to and including Tropical Storm Delta is 224.5" - even though 3 signifiant figures would put it at 225, the idea being that there is error such that accuracy is only up to 3 significant figures more or less. So, 224.5 and 225.023 are the same as far as we can actually tell. (ie. 3 significant figures says that we only have three digits of accuracy, so anything between 224.5 to 225.4 is close enough to each other that we can't actually tell which number is greater). -- Andrea 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. When adding with different significant figures, the key is which decimal place is shared by all of the numbers (the least accurate decimal place). In this case it would be the tenths, since some numbers such as 38.6 exist on the scale. However, there are no individual storms with ACE numbers accurate only to the 1s place. Thus, when you add together the 24 storms you keep the tenths. 224.5 is accurate. Propagation of error is not the same as significant figures. -PK9 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone might have just changed it again. PK9 is correct - when you add or subtract two numbers with sig figs, the result may be a number with more sig figs than the numbers that were added, since the number is truncated based on place values, not number of sig figs. For example, 99.0 + 2.12 = 101.1 (four sig figs), not 101 (three sig figs). --AySz88^-^ 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the ACE section go... I was using it for stats I was doing in meteorology. It would be a plus to have it back. Lincher 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed it. It remains in history, and the external link from which all the information was culled remains in external links. Maybe someone wants to move it to the new statistics page. --Golbez 16:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the ACE section. There is no sense in removing something that is so short and has so much information in such a concise way. 129.120.106.137 17:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the statistics page. If y'all are gonna make it, y'all are gonna have to use it. --Golbez 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where the statistics page is, and honesetly, I don't know if I want to search for it. The ACE table is very useful, and I don't know why the information should be removed. I did follow the external link to the official page, and the wikipedia version was just much easier to use. I've not done any editing on the hurricane pages since there are much more knowledable and experienced people working on this. I'm just a reader. Still, I'm very tempted to try to figure out how to put the ACE table back. 129.120.106.137 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately noticed that the ACE section was gone and I would like to see it restored also.

I vote for putting the ACE back in. I'd do it myself but other edits have been done since the removal, so I can't just revert, and I'm not expert enough to try to manually put it back in. PK9 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the statistics page where it belongs. It's linked from the top of the main section. The ACE section is number bloat that has no business being in the article, especially when the information is linked right there. It takes up more space in the article than a storm or two, and if people are going to complain that the storms section is too long, maybe they should remove trivial information like that. I would love for someone to explain how Stan's ACE is useful information. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the statistics page. If you want to put it back, just copy from that page - but I suggest you do not. --Golbez 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's on the statistics page, and it still took me a while to find the link to that page. Plus, I don't like having to scroll through that hideous chart just to find the ACE table. I'd like to see someone convincingly argue why "2005 atlantic tropical cyclone statistics" deserves its own page while "Hurricane Vince" does not. -PK9 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree complerely - there shouldn't be a statistics article. I think the death toll table should be deleted or moved back here, the colorful chart should be deleted, and the ACE chart should be deleted, or EXTREMELY summarized here. But as long as we have it, might as well use it. If you want to AFD it, go for it and I will support you, but I have other hills I'd rather die on than that. --Golbez 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many people are aware that the 2004 and 2005 seasons are effectively tied for the third most energenic seasons. This makes 2004 and 2005 the most energenic back-to-back seasons. Actually, the last three years have been the most energetic three seasons. The last 5 and 10 years have also been records. Wrs1864 19:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This can be expressed without an entire section and table. --Golbez 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for having the ACE table back in the main article. I missed it and I see it as concise information serving a good, well-defined purpose.Dunemaire 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the link to the stats page has been added at the top of the main page, the information is much easier to find. If we have a statistics page, it makes since for the ACE values to be there (though, I do still miss them on the main page). Question: if we move all of that type of information to a stats page, should we then set up another page for this season's records and move all of them from here to there? The logic is the same for moving ACE, and I daresay that would shorten the article (which many people have expressed a desire for). 129.120.106.137 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the ACE section and I also wish to vote for its restoration. It is in my view interesting and useful as it gives a quick summary of the relative overall strength of the storms over their life. 81.174.244.201 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making an ACE graph since Tropical Storm Tammy I really liked it, I vote for it to be restored. 7:17 PM EDT

All the IPs should really try to sign up an account, and then continue talking, it's so hard to read with those numbers popping up. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NSLE, relax, there are only a couple different IPs, and I really doubt they are sock puppets.

In this case, I think listening to the readers of the article is wise. There seems to be overwhelming support for returning the ACE table to the main article. (That does not imply that people support Golbez's opinon of a need to "summarize" the section in order to fit it in the main article, of course.)

Is there any such thing as a 'request for readership comments' or something similar we can put on the article, so we can get a better idea of what users want (not just for this issue, but things like the button bar too)? --AySz88^-^ 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gotten caught up in trying to solve/close/end the Eddie sock scandal, so I've gotten that tendency. I have to say, it's suspicious, though, that all are IPs (95% ish) and all call for the return of ACE. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NSLE, I signed up for an account with Wikipedia earlier today (simpler process than I expected it to be). Earlier, I was signing this page (by hand) with the name "Rylan". I recently realized that handle name belongs to someone else, so I quit using it and just let the IP show. I am the one listed earlier in this section as 129.120.106.137. Would it clarify things if I go in and edit those to my new account name? Rylan42 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's fine. I've just been caught up in a similar situation, so things which look suspicious (like this) I'll assume sockpuppetry. Although for others it may be better if you do change anything you signed as "Rylan" to your username. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rylan"s in this section have been changed to "Rylan42" but looks like others are already archived. The "real" Rylan has probably never even visited this page so hopefully not any real confusion would result. That aside, I'm still in favor of either restoring the ACE values or keeping the link to the stats page at the top. I notice the link was just removed from the top, and now it is much harder for people that don't know about the other page to find it. Rylan42 04:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually agree with Golbez. ACE is a statistic, and should be kept on the statistics page. Most people will read, or actually at least scroll trough, the article, so the link will still show up near the bottom. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still like having it on the main page, but it does make sense on the statistics page. I'm fine with that as long as the link is moved to a place it can be logically found -- either the very top of the page or in the links section. Currently, it is in the first section after the introduction. Rylan42 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am 81.174.244.201 and I forgot to login before making the comment last time -- sorry -- I am not a sock puppet I believe, although I had never heard of the term till the discussion here. I still prefer to see it on the main page, but if there is a strong view against then can we have the ACE in the season summary table have a sublink to a storm breakdown given on the stats page or something like that... Nashikawa 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a table summarizing the 2005 AHS. It is currently complete through Katrina. It is located at User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/TC_table. This is meant to be in addition to the Storms section, but as a replacement for the ACE section and the deaths table. It think that this can be a succinct summary of the season's statistics, presenting a fair amount of information in a reasonably coherent fashion. For example, it makes it easy to see that the category 5 storm Katrina only made landfall as a category 4 storm. --EMS | Talk 06:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is...extraordinarily colorful. Oh, and wind should NOT be in knots. Jdorje 06:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help the supposed size problem with the article, and again, am I alone here in expecting people to be able to read? I don't need a table to tell me that Katrina was bad, or that Lee was a non-event. As for when Katrina made landfall, I think the article states that just fine. There remains only three Cat 5s to strike at intensity. --Golbez 08:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see how anyone can consider a table an insult to their reading ability. Also, easier lookup of information = good. --AySz88^-^ 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• shrug* I just think over-tabularizing is a bad thing. I prefer to keep most things in text, and keep things that work best in tables (the earliest-storm chart) in tables. I guess what I'm saying is, if it's already in text, why table it? And if you're tabling it, does that mean you're going to remove it from the text?

Also, you're imparting information with color, which is considered bad, due to accessibility and browser issues. --Golbez 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with color if it's not the only place to get the same information? (i.e. the category and winds are listed right there!) --AySz88^-^ 16:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The landfalling category is mentioned in text? Because it's not. Could be added. --Golbez 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall windspeeds are mentioned in text, which is plenty enough. - Cuivienen 21:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with using color, however too much color makes it look bad. I can't stand looking at a giant swath of teal and red accross my screen, it makes it hard for me to read the information contained within. PK9 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have updated User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/TC_table somewhat. The changes include

• Added header links;
• Using mph instead of knots;
• Moved the ACE column to just left of the landfall columns (since this is an overall storm characteristic);
• Created a "no landfall" color;
• Added entries through Maria.

My temptation now is not add this to the 2000 AHS article itself, but instead to have it be a separate statistics article. As it grows, it gets more and more obvious that this will be "dead weight" in the main article, but may make a handy reference on its own (sort of like an appendix).

I find the colors to be useful. Given that the user is oriented to their meanings, this becomes a useful guide to the table itself. However, explanation is needed, and I agree that color cannot be the only way of imparting category-related information in that table (and in fact there is a category column in the table itself). The need for an explanation is another reason that this probably does not belong in the main article. --EMS | Talk 19:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea but this table is just too big IMO. I mean it's HUGE. Maybe its trying to stuff too much info into one table. TimL 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think it is the landfall information. It should be taken out. It just makes the table too big IMO. TimL 16:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a much more minimalist example, needs a lot of work, my table creation skills are minimal (no pun intended!), but I think its a better starting point. Smaller summary table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timl2k4 (talk • contribs) 17:38, November 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's meant as a quick reference, so size really doesn't matter very much, more information in a tabularized format is more important. --AySz88^-^ 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going in the main article size DOES matter. The current table is an eyesore in my opinion. No offense ems, I think it has to do with the colors and the cramming in of so much info. Just my opinion but a very strong one. TimL 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on placing this in the main article. I wanted it there at first but that is not going to work. Your smaller version may be usable, but even that is going to take up room in an already crowded article. (You are also going to be surprised by how big even that smaller table gets to be.) My thoughts at this point are to complete the thing and build a statistics article around it. If gets deleted, so be it, but I think that as an auxillary article it can work.

On the colors issue, all that I can tell you is that every time I look at it I find that my eye is being guided by them. Only at first glance is this a riot of color. Once you have some idea of what you are looking for (like say that category 4 and 5 storms), you find that you can go right to them with very little searching. --EMS | Talk 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should look at the Unisys page the 2005 AHS, which shows how big even your smaller version can be. I think that tabularizing the statistics is a good thing to do, but it is not going to work in a main storm season article. --EMS | Talk 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the table idea entirely. To be brutally honest, the colors are hideous. They blind the reader and turn him (figuative gender) away. If I saw that, I would not be compelled at all to read the article. I would be confused, disoriented and would not grasp the subject well. The way we have it right now makes the reader grasp the subject. The length is a menial issue in my opinion. The article is 66 kb long now. This talk page has been 150 kb long without anyone saying a word. And now people want to replace a perfectly good article with a hidious table, what's wrong with this picture? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading my postings on this or not? I keep agreeing that this table does not belong in the main article, and most certainly cannot be a replacement for it. What I thought might be a good way of summarizing the season instead is big enough to be article in its own right. So my "out" is to go down the separate article route and see where it leads. I keep finding the table to be useful because of the colors. (BTW - I did not pick the storm colors. You can thank others for that, but I never was under any illusions that I would create another Mona Lisa.) I will complete the table and try adding some supporting explanation. The small SS-scale template will be a good help with that BTW. But in any case, let's deal with my current plans, and drop any pretense that the main article will see anything more of it than a link or two to it.

My previous posting still applies. It is unattractive to the reader wherever it's put. -- E. Brown

I have built an article around my table (still at User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/TC_table), and added another one (but this one without a lot of color). I will let it sit for a day or two. After that, I plan to move it to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. I will stand pat on the color issue. The big table is not nearly as useful without them. I will admit that the big table is an interior designer's nightmare, but when you look past the colors and at the data that they encode, it becomes very, very helpful. Quick! Find Katrina, Rita, and Wilma! As bright red entries they are staring you in the face. Without the color, that task would not be so easy. OTOH, E. Brown is right that the big table would be a disasterous turn-off at the start of the main article. At the end of this one, it should work a lot better.

BTW - I may also put the table for comparing this season to an average season in this page. It is statistical and not in other storm season pages. --EMS | Talk 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the hurricane season offically ends on the 30 November. Is this likely to still be the case given the state of the season this year? Will any formed in December be named from the 2006 list or contiuning along the Greek alphabet? doktorb 07:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They would continue to be named from the Greek alphabet. There have been December storms before, it isn't impossible, but let's hope not. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cut-off point would be January 1 2006. Any storms after that would follow the names list of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing, this season, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a December hurricane. That said, if the current overall atmospheric and oceanic conditions don't improve (which I can't see happening), a December storm will be highly unlikely. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the latest SSTs. Note that at this time, the sea surface is staying relatively warm, especially in the Carribean Sea. Also note that somewhat warmer water extends all that way across the Atlantic as far north as the Strait of Gibraltar (which would account for Vince BTW). So we are set up for a December storm, most likely in the Carribean. These SSTs are not the best for tropical storm formation, but they are far from being prohibitive for it. --EMS | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The waters around the Gibraltar should cool in the wake of Delta, though. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vince was more right at Gibralter, but it does not seen to have done much in that regard! I assure you that the SSTs over the last month have been wierd, with the ocean seeming to have warmed instead of cooled. So it seems that there is some upwelling of wamer waters going on, most likely east of the Lesser Antilles. However, with winter rapidly approaching in the northern hemisphere, I find it hard to beleive that your prediction of cooler waters in that area is not going to come true soon. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say this every time a new discussion about splitting the page comes up. You don't need information for storms that are not notable. We don't need information on every tiny area of the storm affected. We don't need information on exactly which factors set up the formation of the storm and how all of the factors came together to form the storm (which is the kind of information you find in the tropical cyclone reports that come out at the end of the season). We don't need all of this specific information! Even if it's split into a subpage...only the hurricane freaks, such as us, will be interested in reading it at all.

You guys are saying that the point of the subpages will be to provide information that the reader will be interested in. But only the most avid hurricane enthusiasts, such as ourselves, will be interested in reading such specific information as you guys make it seem like we should be putting into the article. People looking for information on each of the storms generally aren't going to want to know the technical, scientific mechanics of the system, rather general information on the storms. One or two sentences of text will not cover that much information, and then they go into the articles on specific information that, in some cases, will confuse or bore the general reader, or both.

Yes, I am bringing this up again. We need a happy medium on storm descriptions to where everybody will be pleased, and at the moment, I think that the information we currently have on the main page is at about that happy medium. For some storms, the happy medium is all the information that anybody even cares about. Subpages for every storm, or even every landfalling storm, is just plain too much. We have too many subpages at the moment! Beta and Vince should be merged back in, but otherwise, how the storm descriptions are now is perfectly fine.

Now, what I propose eliminating is the button bar (everyone here seems content with it, but what purpose does it serve anyway? We've already got a navigation tool!). It is distracting and annoying, and serves no purpose. Someone above proposed removing all of the links to the advisory archive, stating that it is simply too much and adds more than people think to the article length. I agree. Place a link in the external links, and also one in the description of the individual storm description section, saying something like; individual storm advisories, issued every 6 hours by the NHC, may be found [insert link here] or whatever. The ACE table must go too, although I think that that is generally agreed upon now. I still believe (as I noted previously, and it appears to be archived now), that the records sections should be drastically reduced, integrated into the article, or split off into its own article. Nobody else has suggested this, but perhaps somebody agrees with me now that I mention it.

Sorry for the length, but I needed to sum up all of my views in one, since I haven't really been around here lately to witness this, controversy so to speak, and haven't had chances to respond myself.

bob rulz 09:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe non-notable information should not be in wikipedia, then why does it comprise 60% of the article? The information you are talking about is the entirety of the storms section. The purpose of moving it into (one or more) separate articles is so that readers of the main article do not have to wade through it. Because yes: people do not want to read this (except very rarely, as a reference). Jdorje 09:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me exactly what information in the storm summaries section is not notable? bob rulz 09:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the storms section is what we are proposing to move to separate articles; it is you who said it is not notable ("You don't need information on storms that are not notable"). I don't believe in notability criteria myself...but I am arguing along your lines. To follow those lines, there are two types of storms in the storms section: those that are notable and those that are not. For those that are notable, the info in this section is just a repeat of the "Storm history" from that storm's main article, and so unnecessary; this information is not interesting to have in the season article as the interesting bits are already included in either the summary or the summary. For those storms that are not notable, the information is itself not notable and so (according to your argument) does not belong in wikipedia. Q.E.D.. Now, my argument is slightly different: I don't mind including non-notable information so long as it is structured properly so as not to bog down the reader (which is exactly what the current format does, since it is way too long). Thus in my belief the entirety of the storms section does not belong in the season article, and the "obviously" best way to structure it is with one sub-article per storm. If nobody reads these sub-articles, who cares? At least you won't be forced to read it like you are now. Jdorje 09:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your view, Jdorje, then, pray tell, what are you going to include in the season article? The season summary? Is that all? NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the storms section and we will be left with a 27k long article: a good size. There is also more useful information that can be added to the article at this point, since the Season summary section can be better structured, more storm tables can be added, etc. One example is the Economic effects section that was suggested. Jdorje 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While, yes, it is good for the articles to be below 32k, there is no official rule anywhere that says it has to be. There are many well-written articles that are 40k or even 50k long, and, personally, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. And take out the storm summary section? WTF? Note: 2005 hurricane season. The hurricane season wouldn't exist without the tropical cyclones. Take out the tropical cyclones and then what do you have? GASP! Nothing! Becuase they are the season. They make up the season. Would you have, say, a first-person shooter without the badguys and the guns? No. You know why? Because that is what makes up a first-person shooter! OKay, bad comparison, but you get my point. The separate tropical cyclones are what makes up the season as a whole, and *GASP*, it wouldn't exist without them! bob rulz 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is highly flawed. Every storm already receives mention in the 'Season summary' section. In fact the 'Season summary' already gives almost all of the notable information about all the storms (a few things, like damage, strength, location of each storm are not given but are already being considered for addition to the deaths table). For instance, compare the two forms below: one from the storms section, the other of which should be in the Season summary section. Based on your notability criteria, what does the first form offer that the second does not? Nothing. Jdorje 18:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Thirteen formed from a tropical wave about 960 statute miles (1,550 km) east of the Lesser Antilles on August 28. It then degenerated into a broad area of low pressure on August 29, but later regenerated on August 31 and the National Hurricane Center resumed advisories. Later that day, it strengthened into Tropical Storm Lee, the 12th named storm of the season. Later in the evening it was downgraded to a tropical depression, having encountered an unfavorable upper level environment. The tropical depression dissipated on the evening of September 1. Lee never posed any threat to land while it was in the middle of the Atlantic.

One other hurricane (Irene) and one tropical storm (Lee) formed but never posed a threat to land.

<--

I agree that the storms section really needs to stay in the article, and it's at a good size as is. As for specific storm articles, I'm just a bit more permissive than bob. I think we could mention some things (such as pressure), and I'm a supporter of the Vince article (as I find that storm interesting.) But I think that the Cindy article is very unneccessary, and personally think the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma articles should probably go. As far as Alpha and Gamma go, I think the death count isn't really high enough to make them worthy of articles without any other reasons. Unfortunately, death numbers of those amounts are not at all uncommon in those regions. But I guess I wouldn't really fight people keeping them.

I liked the "economic effects" section, and I think it has a place in the article. And I rather like the idea of a seperate records article. I'd be sad to see the ACE table go, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. And honestly, I don't care about the button bar. I don't think it's needed, but it makes people happy, and it can stay if people want. But overall, I'm just tired of all the grief over the article size and what to do and so on and so forth. Some articles are long. We've had more than double the number of storms in a normal season. Some of them were very devastating. It will be long. It doesn't need to be tiny. --Patteroast 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note "2005 Atlantic hurricane season". To give each storm its due, the details about them need to be placed in their own articles, not cramped and cropped into a blurb on a page about the season.

The storms section can be cut down to size as details are moved from it to the articles, but it probably shouldn't be fully removed, as it serves as a fair storm-by-storm overview of the season.

"Notability" is very subjective, but the AfD for Tropical Storm Cindy shows that most seasoned general-Wikipedia editors think that it is more notable than whatever else is accepted on Wikipedia. Also, a small but fleshed-out article does not mean it should be merged into a page that basically serves as a summary.

The button bar is a wonderful tool for easier navigation, especially if individual storm articles are established.

Keep the ACE table in some form, since it'd be a shame to just lose that information, but agreed in that there's too much emphasis on it.

Records can be split off, general economic effects can be added (but that also highlights the difference between a season's details and each storm's - that section probably will summarize the season's effects, and nobody would want this article to detail the economic effects of every storm, since that goes into the individual storm articles).

Don't forget that there is also an introduction and sections in each storm's article - the introduction to the article serves those who want a simple overview of that storm and is basically what are the storm summaries now. That level of detail won't be skipped.

--AySz88^-^ 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with AySz88. We need to shorten up the storms section, but retain the detail in individual storm articles for the most part. As-is the descriptions of each storm in the main article are way too long. It is my view that we need to come up with a new format and policy for these articles. There is too much data benig made available due to the increase in the size of the pool of editors who work on these pages. IMO, that alone may have made it so that doing atorm subpages is a viable and reasonable option when in was not before. At the least, the threshold for being "significant" enoughto justify an article has been reduced by the increased paritcipation.

My view is that we need to figure out how to organize what we have, and leave it for the future to determine what is or is not significant. We may well find that as a general rule that individual articles are quite appropriate for recent seasons but that as time goes on and interest wanes that a contraction is necessary and reasonable. However, I am loathe to make that judgement while still in the thick of the season. Let's act as pack rats for now, and see how we feel about the result when we have had a chance to gain a little perspective. After all, it is easier to delete content that to recreate it. --EMS | Talk 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little summarization is all that is needed. I agree completely with you Bob rulz, and here is my version of what I think should happen. Mine is 35 kilobytes, but it includes every storm with some loss of text (oh well, it's shorter and, IMO, more interesting). Hurricanehink 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent start, but the storm summaries and still too big. (I would pare the descriptions to the bare bones, and let much of the detail be placed in individuial storm articles myself.) However, moving the records discussion to another article is an excellent idea (which I had been considering myself). I would also get rid of that oversized Saffir-Simpson scale graphic near the top: This article is about the season, not the SS scale. --EMS | Talk 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire basis of this argument comes from the fact that some people here, a minority, have deemed that weaker storms are not notable. You do not have the authority to define what is notable or not notable; if individual articles are being created on storms, and are being filled up with information, then they are obviously notable. As for the changes above made by hink, I have to disagree, since they do not resolve the main problem which is the excessive length of the Table of Contents. Also, it does not include the storm tracks. See my tabled version above. --tomf688^{talk} 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the Table of Contents is not the problem here! Now, personally, as I have said before, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. There are quite a few well-written articles on Wikipedia longer than this one! However, that does not mean that it shouldn't be cut down a little. Hurricanehink, your suggestion is fairly good compared to others I have seen, although there are quite a few things I'd personally do different (such as get rid of the massive Saffir-Simpson Scale table and certain grammatical things; no big deal). It needs to be updated with how the pictures and current storm tracks are arranged at the moment, and I would keep the table on the number of deaths for each storm, but we could figure everything out from there. We don't need to do anything fancy, we don't need to separate every storm into a separate article. I actually think it's a reasonable solution, just needs to be updated and touched up a bit. bob rulz 08:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bob. I actually made that back when Wilma was around, so I didn't change a few things when the other storms came. I complete agree with what you said. The hurricane articles should be on here, not in sub pages. Mine is now 41 with the changes you suggested, not as bad as the current 67. I personally think the forecast section can be made much shorter, but that's just me. I did not change that part, but in the future someone can make it shorter. I put the TOC on the left so you wouldn't have to scroll so far for the first section. Hurricanehink 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to squeeze the "hurricane articles" into this article (which serves as a summary of the season), you are losing the information off the face of Wikipedia! Hurricanehink's shortening would be fine, for example, except why the opposition to moving the details to separate articles instead of removing them completely?

My primary issue is that there currently isn't a place for these details to go - many are certainly not notable enough on an article about the season as a whole. My main motivation is not that the article is 'too long', though that should be taken into account because of others already expressing their views on that matter. It's just that moving the details has the added beneficial side effect of allowing the shortening the summary of the season, since unnecessary details (for the season article) are now in the individual articles.

Bob, the length of the Table of Contents is a separate issue related to how it renders in IE (there's a LOT of extra whitespace). --AySz88^-^ 19:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<--

Jdorje, I agree with Bob rulz. None of the posts you've made in this section have made much sense to me. The storms section has tons of useful information. You are trying to make subpages dominate over the main article. BAAAAAAADDDDD! Say it with me: "The main article is supreme". The reason we don't create subpages for every storm is because there is only basic info available for a lot of the storms. An article should not have any stale, tedious or menial info, much less be comprised entirly of such info. I can't see how many of you people don't get why stale, tedious and menial are bad things. There is a difference between discussing a topic in detail (which is what the storms section does for the 2005AHS) and being tedious and dull (which creating an article for storms like Lee would be). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with AySz88 here. The main problem with removing storm articles (they're not subpages) is information loss. If an article can be written about one (and by that, I don't mean just how it formed and its track, I'm talking about substantial information like casualties and formation history), then there is no need to get rid of it. If there is no information, then it can't be written, and it should probably not exist. But that said, the users who are going to come looking for the Tropical Storm Cindy (2005) articles are probably those who are going to be interested in the technical details about them, because they're doing research or other things. More information = good. Too much information in one place = bad. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd summed it up well, and I absolutely agree. If articles are being written, it is ridiculous to delete them in favor of having less information. People come to an encylcopedia to obtain technical details beyond a simple summary, and they should be able to access that information here through a friendly interface instead of having to interpret the meteorological-techno-speak the NHC releases in its reports. And Eric, as I've said before, articles about Presidents, airplane models, planets, etc., aren't placed on one page, so that argument isn't really going to work IMHO. --tomf688^{talk} 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You all seem to have completely ignored my point. Articles should only be created if there is enough useful information about it to justify an article. An article with just basic info about the storm is no good, the main article does that. We need articles with a lot of extra, interesting information. Not tedious, boring details. If you can meet these requirements for storms like Lee, I'll be very impressed. We want to create articles that people will want to read. Not fill a page with boring, stale, tedious details. If there is not enough interesting information presented in the article, then it should not exist. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter whether the exact same information is held in the season article, where people will have to skip over it, or if it's held in a separate article, where they don't have to read it at all? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article: details are important. My goal would be to make the season article one that is interesting to read (it's not now - bogged down with too much detail) while moving the details into sub-articles. Jdorje 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eric. You summed it up nicely. We have articles on all of the tropical systems that have too much information to put on the main page, and no interesting additional information is available about the storms that nobody cares about. No information will be lost by keeping the articles the way they are. Please, no subpages. There is not enough info for all of them to have subpages. bob rulz 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, it looks to me like two fully different arguments, which means I'm probably misunderstanding one of you.

Eric: The worry that information might not lend itself to an "interesting article" does not imply that the information should be removed from Wikipedia. Besides, moving the details would actually make both articles 'more interesting' since what you view as "tedious details" are out of 2005AHS (where readers are looking for a season summary and not a cropped and compressed article-squeezed-into-a-blurb on each storm) and are moved to the individual storm articles. (To be perfectly clear: though I do agree that your "tedious details" should be out of this article, I think they should be moved and not removed, since I would characterize them more like "too-in-depth details" or "off-topic details" for this particular article considering that the topic of the article is the season as a whole.)

Bob: I really don't see where you're getting that there's not enough information (see NHC TCRs, and existing in-progress pages, as well as the two earlier responses by Titoxd and Tomf688), and information has already been lost because people have/had been taking out "tedious details" (to use Eric's term).

--AySz88^-^ 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to put boring tedious information that no one will read into an article? See my post here: [12] at the bottom of the section. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People come to an encyclopedia to do research, not for entertainment. Whether information is "boring" or not is irrelevant. Also, contrary to the opinion above that every storm that should have an article dpes have an article, there have been several attempts at making individual articles on storms which have been shot down. See the edit history of Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) for example. --tomf688^{talk} 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the reasoning of some people on this page, I've decided to make a new proposal: Remove all individual storm articles. Katrina, Rita, etc, they can all be merged back into the main article. Yes, a lot of text will have to be "pruned", but all the information contained within the articles is already available somewhere on the internet. We'll put an external links section for whoever cares enough to want details about Katrina, etc... But why stop there? We should merge all Atlantic seasons into one article. In 10,000 years who's going to care about stuff like what the names of all the storms were? All they'll care about is how many storms were in each season. The rest of that information is not notable, and with the proper pruning, we can have just one article on Atlantic hurricanes. People wanting more details can find it elsewhere on the internet... But wait, there's more. All the hurricane and typhoon season articles can be merged into the "Tropical Cyclone" article. We'll have to reduce some boring details, but ultimately the casual reader who doesn't really care about hurricanes won't want to be burdened with having to navigate through separate articles to read about hurricanes in the Atlantic or typhoons in the Pacific... Actually, the Tropical Cyclone article should be merged into the "Weather" article, since it is a type of weather phenomena, and we wouldn't want to lead anyone by the leash if they really don't have much interest in weather phenomena. If someone does have more than a minimal interest, there are plenty of places where they can go to look for it... See how far this can go? Notability is subjective; you will always find someone who doesn't care about a certain subject no matter how general a level you make it. What's objective is the amount of data wikipedians are willing to collate and write up, and that's reflected in article length. -PK9 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2003-back seasons have no tropical depressions, I thought we should get rid of this year's as well, but I hit on a better idea.

User:Sarsaparilla39/Sandbox

Great idea! The depressions shouldn't be with the storms, but we can't just get rid of them. Good compromise. Hurricanehink 14:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's a nice organizational change. (We're "too crazy," eh, Hurricanehink?) --AySz88^-^ 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got that right Aysz88. Sarsaparilla, you should go ahead and do it. Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done before as on 1966 Atlantic hurricane season; I'm not sure why it wasn't continued. - Cuivienen 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind this, even though I actually like having the depressions in the main sequence. But I won't complain if it's done. Except rename "Other Storms" to "Depressions" maybe. Actually, removing them from the main sequence does make it easier to see which was the Xth storm. --Golbez 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But why stop with depressions? Why not move non-notable storms like Lee over there too? Jdorje 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're part of the main sequence of storms. The season included both Lee and STS22, but depressions are rarely if ever notable. Lee was notable essentially for incrementing the letter, but still necessary to fully explain that. Either split off the TDs, or don't, but don't split off the main storms. For the 2004 Pacific season, I attempted writing summaries only for the notable storms - that was apparently not what people wanted, as every Pacific storm for other seasons now has a writeup (the 2004 season article was the first one created). So people apparently want writeups for every main storm, but depressions, well, I said I COULD get behind it, but I prefer them to be in the main sequence. So maybe your interrogation is misdirected. --Golbez 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this solves anything. I think tropical depressions should stay where they are. Best not to have our readers confused about the sequence of the storms. --Revolución (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's confusing, but I'll just go with the majority on this. --AySz88^-^ 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the storms out of the main sequence makes it harder to determine when they occured in the course of events of the season. There is no real reason to move these. --tomf688^{talk} 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I like the TD descriptions where they are and I believe it's better that way. bob rulz 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The final report on Hurricane Dennis is out. No real changes to the intensity, although there was a slight change to the track: it did make two landfalls in Cuba, the first near Punta del Ingles (originally it was thought it had stayed just offshore there). Also there was a Grenada landfall while it was TD4. CrazyC83 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where can Final Reports be found? --SargeAbernathy 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for the Dennis report - other reports can be found here. I adjusted the timeline and made a few changes to the Dennis page to reflect the revised track. CrazyC83 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know where the best-track info from the final report can be found (in a convenient text format, that is)? Jdorje 09:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis report, in Microsoft Word NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unisys when it is released, not sure when it will be there. CrazyC83 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tcportal Okay ... There is a LOT of information out there about hurricanes, tracking of, naming of, scientists, intensities, scales, records, etc. Has anyone here ever thought about purchasing one of those opens ource wiki kits and making an independent wiki page to document hurricane material? Then set up wikipedia with basic information with a link to the Wikicane site for more detailed analysis? --SargeAbernathy 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about making a portal, like the those about soccer or math...

Well, Portal:Tropical cyclones can definitely be done, if people consider it to be a good idea. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was thinking about that once. I certainly won't stop anybody who wants to make it. bob rulz 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's time to jump on the bandwagon and make it. I'll make that a blue link and I ask all the regulars here to go check that I'm doing everything right. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make Cyclones capitalised, though, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones... NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 06:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read your comment, but fortunately, I had capitalized it anyways. It is available at Portal:Tropical Cyclones. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I need people with some creativity to help me fill this out. I'll go look at other portals for ideas, but I'd sure like it more if all of us contributed on this. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good. I'm looking forward to its expansion. Anything in particular that I can do? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There still is a lot to do! A layout has to be decided, and we have to decide what exactly to put on the main page. We also have to populate the list of categories, list of seasons, decide on an article to submit to WP:FA and Peer review. Also, we need to get ready for next season. Man... I think that we need all the hands we can get here. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once I saw that the ACE table had been removed, I decided that it was time to move my new article, 2005 Atlantic tropical cyclone statistics, over to the article space. I am also using it to take the place of the deaths table, which I did delete. --EMS | Talk 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why the ACE table was removed. However, I think it should be left in there because the ACE is of the records that was made/broken during the 2005 season. If someone wanted to know this information, he/she would look here. There is another article, 2005 Atlantic tropical cyclone statistics (created by EMS, see above section), but this article is not complete yet. -- 165.161.3.13 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can mention the ACE record was broken without having the ACE for every single individual storm. --Golbez 18:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the stories on my radio this morning talked about 2005 being like two Hurricane Seasons in one... OK, if we split this season into two (by gender of the storms(Alpha, Gamma & Epsilon Male, Beta & Delta Female), what do those two seasons look like? The Girls still give us a season that is very newsworthy; Katrina, Rita and Wilma are all *very* bad storms (in the top ten of the worst recorded). What about the Boys? Is a 13 storm season with Dennis, Stan and Gamma in it viewed as being medium, heavy or very heavy?Naraht 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13 storms is still above average, but not greatly so. Dennis alone would have been a noteworthy storm to have in a season. (Many seasons haven't even had a single major hurricane.) Dennis and Stan together would be a bit like 1998 (Georges and Mitch) scaled down slightly: a pretty bad season. Gamma wasn't really all that notable. - Cuivienen 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Stan killed thousands of people. --Revolución (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it was nowhere near what Mitch killed... CrazyC83 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, people, Greek letters do not have a gender signifier. That's something some fanciful poster here on Wikipedia invented, and it JUST WOULDN'T DIE. Mike H. That's hot 05:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that quite well, but the idea was to keep the split as an alternation and extend it until the current storm. Besides, the only GLO (Greek Letter Organization) that I know of that abbreviates to the "Betas" is Beta Theta Pi, which is a social men's fraternity. (The "Deltas" OTOH, has been used as an abbreviation for at least one men's fraternity and one women's sorority) Besides, next year Alpha will be Female. :) Naraht 06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put the current event tag back on. We can debate whether or not we should be predicting any December storms later, but at least as long as Epsilon is active, new & current information will be added to the 2005 Alantic hurricane season page rapidly, thus justifying it as a current event. Whether or not the season is "officially" over or not doesn't change the fact that there is an active tropical cyclone in the Atlantic at the current moment. -PK9 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, once Tropical Storm Epsilon(or perhaps Hurricane Epsilon in a few hours) dissipates, we should continue the current event tag until there are no areas of interest in the atlantic.Weatherman90 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that any storms that might form during December would still be counted as part of this season? --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 06:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The epic 2005 Atlantic hurricane season ends at midnight tonight. Not that that stopped Epsilon. I thought this would be a good time to reflect on this insane season.

• 29 tropical cyclones
• 26 named storms
• 13 hurricanes
• 7 major hurricanes
• 3 Category 5 hurricanes
• 8 US landfalling storms
• 5 US landfalling hurricanes
• 11 Gulf coast landfalls (Key West to Western Yucatan)
• 2,823 dead
• 17 countries directly affected
• $100+ billion total estimated damage

I hope I never see a hurricane season this bad again. 100 years from now, this season will still be talked about as the year the Atlantic went mad. This season is now coming to a close, but the active cycle we are now in has only just begun and with a damn big bang too. This kind of activity will probably continue for the next 30-40 years, hopefully not this bad. The citizens of the Gulf coast will continue to be brutally battered by hurricanes as they try to rebuild their shattered lives.

Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katrina, Lee, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to 29 tropical cyclones :-) - Cuivienen 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The season summary says that one of those depressions was subtropical not tropical. So it should be 28 tropical cyclones plus one sub-tropical one? Assuming that depressions can be considered to be cyclones at all (which is dubious). Jdorje 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All we can do is hope the Atlantic doesn't stay mad in 2006...although I have a REALLY bad feeling about it. I think that it will not have nearly as many storms, but just as many devastating storms and an ACE just as high.

About the only solace I can think of was that the East Coast from the Carolinas northward weren't hit all that bad (from hurricanes at least), despite my predictions of a Katrina-type storm there too, only Hurricane Ophelia was really a factor there.

I counted at least 21 countries affected:

• United States - Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Tammy, TD22, Wilma
• Mexico - Bret, Cindy, Emily, Gert, Jose, Stan, Wilma
• Cuba - Dennis, Rita, Wilma
• Grenada - Dennis, Emily
• Jamaica - Dennis, Emily
• Haiti - Emily, Alpha
• Cayman Islands - Emily
• Bermuda - Harvey, Nate
• Bahamas - Katrina, Rita, Wilma
• Canada - Katrina, Ophelia, Wilma
• Iceland - Maria
• Norway - Maria
• Guatemala - Stan
• El Salvador - Stan
• Nicaragua - Stan, Beta, Gamma
• Honduras - Stan, Wilma, Beta, Gamma
• Costa Rica - Stan, Beta, Gamma
• Spain - Vince, Delta
• Portugal - Vince
• Dominican Republic - Alpha
• Morocco - Delta
• True fish-spinners - Franklin, Irene, TD10, Lee, Philippe, TD19, Epsilon (so far)

CrazyC83 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting the countries affected by tropical cyclones. Extratropical doesn't count. That would exclude Iceland, Norway, Canada, and Morocco. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical counts in my book; three storms (Maria, Ophelia and Delta) caused loss of life and damage in the extratropical stage, also Ophelia became extratropical just off Nova Scotia while clearly affecting the area... CrazyC83 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a NOAA document a few months ago about cyclic Atlantic hurricane behavior. Unfortunately I can no longer find the document, but it was really interesting. If you just look at the raw number of hurricanes or number of strong hurricanes, there is little obvious pattern. However if you look at the number of Atlantic (as opposed to Gulf or Caribbean) hurricanes there is a huge pattern. The stat they gave (which is a little unclear to me) is that in the 18 years from 1947-1964, there were 19 major hurricanes to "hit" (not the same as making landfall) the U.S. East Coast, while in the 18 years from 1965 to 1982, there were none. In a sense the Gulf and Caribbean patterns are the opposite: in the years with reduced Atlantic activity there is increased Caribbean activity (such as Camille, Allen, Frederic, etc.), although the trend here is much less noticable. The interesting point is that the cycle is, in theory, trending back toward more Atlantic hurricanes: powerful storms such as Andrew, Floyd, and Fran in the 1990's follow this pattern. However, the 2004 and 2005 seasons haven't followed this pattern at all: 2004 had 1 major East Coast hurricane and 2 major Gulf/Caribbean ones, while 2005 had three major Gulf/Caribbean ones and no Atlantic ones. So I'd be interested to see what the theorists have to say about the cycle after these last 2 years. Jdorje 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, to top it all off, a 2005 storm has also broken God's finger. 80.178.179.17 08:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cayman Islands is not a country. If you're grouping in Delta's damage of the Canary Islands in with Spain, you should group the Cayman Islands with the UK. Mike H. That's hot 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that, although it is a semi-independent colony, while the Canaries are a part of Spain like Hawaii is to the US. As for the God's Finger reference, it would have been more fitting if Epsilon (or the last storm) had broken it. CrazyC83 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another incredible fact about this season. There are 26 weeks in the hurricane season. This year, only two saw no tropical cyclone activity! TWO! The week of June 19 and the week of November 6. That means that we had 19 weeks of nearly unbroken activity. Plus four other weeks. Gaps during the time from June 28-Halloween lasted no longer than 4 days and 12 hours. 19 weeks of nearly solid activity. That is incredible! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the record for the latest storm in a hurricane season? --Revolución (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second Hurricane Alice of 1954 developed on December 30, 1954 and lasted until January 5, 1955. CrazyC83 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that's assuming you place the cutoff at the year boundary. One could argue that since the season is 6 months long, the 3 months before and 3 months after should be considered part of that same season. This would mean January and February storms would count for the season before - and there have been several such storms. However the only official data I'm aware of is the NHC best-track ("HURDAT") data, and these list January storms as part of the next year (though it's not clear whether they do so consciously or just by default). Jdorje 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cutoff has to be at the year boundary because January and February storms are given names off the 2006 list, not the 2005 one. It might not be the most valid choice, but its the choice the NHC/WMO has made. -PK9 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a fair one at that, since they are extremely rare. The oceans are too cold and too unstable most of the time. CrazyC83 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it were any year but 2005, I'd relax, but when I look at Dr. Gray's season summary and see stuff like this: As of November 16, no tropical cyclone activity was recorded during the month. Since 1950, 33 of 56 years have had no named storm development during November. Very few seasons have witnessed tropical cyclone development after November 18. And immediately 2005 drops 3 storms after the 18th on them... I wouldn't put it past December to have a couple for us. And maybe January, although that would go into the next year's wiki. -PK9 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and the other official data would be the naming system, which would imply a Jan 1 cutoff. Jdorje 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well wait, what about the Southern-hemisphere seasons? Where do they put their cutoff? Would the convenience be enough for policies to be different for the Northern hemisphere? --AySz88^-^ 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them have no cut-offs, they have lists that keep rotating regardless of year, like the Western Pacific and the Central Pacific. CrazyC83 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course...if a storm is named before midnight Dec 31 it uses a 2005 name,but would a numbered,near-storm-strength 2005 depression still get a 2006 name if it reached name status just after midnight?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the charts here at USA Today. Those look like they came out of the Wikipedia infoboxes! CrazyC83 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Direct link) --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the way they categorise deaths into direct and indirect. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There can be little doubt they are taken from wikipedia...or one of the mirrors. Jdorje 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the "(potentially more)" under the "Hurricane Katrina" death toll was probably taken straight from the Hurricane Katrina infobox. I wish the press would cite things like this, just to avoid possible self-reinforcing loops of bad information. --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Discusses the issue of back up names. One suggestion is to have another list to the six in rotation and use that for any of the six that exhuast their list. I think it's a good idea. What do you guys think? tdwuhs

Alpha might be a candidate for retirement because Tropical Storm Alpha caused flooding that killed 33 people in Haiti and nine in the Dominican Republic in late October. Do you really think so? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. I'd be curious to see what lists we could come up with...although I wonder if a male or female name should lead the list. I don't really think Alpha is a good candidate for retirement based on that description though... CrazyC83 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, 33 and 9? That's more deaths than we have recorded for Alpha. I'll go update the Alpha page. - Cuivienen 14:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The November summary is up[14], and is a summary for the entire season. Some snippets:

THE 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON IS THE MOST ACTIVE ON RECORD.
TWENTY-SIX NAMED TROPICAL STORMS FORMED...BREAKING THE OLD RECORD
OF 21 SET BACK IN 1993. THIRTEEN STORMS BECAME HURRICANES...
BREAKING THE OLD RECORD OF 12 SET BACK IN 1969. SEVEN OF THE
HURRICANES BECAME MAJOR HURRICANES...CATEGORY THREE OR HIGHER ON
THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE...INCLUDING THREE...KATRINA...
RITA...AND WILMA...WHICH REACHED CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY. THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1851 THAT THREE CATEGORY FIVE STORMS HAVE BEEN
KNOWN TO OCCUR IN A SEASON. THE SEASON ALSO INCLUDED THREE
DEPRESSIONS THAT DID NOT REACH TROPICAL STORM STRENGTH.

IN CONTRAST...BASED ON THE AVERAGE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS...IN AN
AVERAGE SEASON THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN 11 NAMED STORMS...6 HURRICANES
...AND 2 MAJOR HURRICANES.

THESE NUMBERS COULD CHANGE...AS CINDY MAY BE UPGRADED TO A HURRICANE
AT LANDFALL IN LOUISIANA...AND EMILY MAY HAVE BRIEFLY REACHED
CATEGORY FIVE STRENGTH.

KATRINA WILL LIKELY BE RECORDED AS THE MOST DEVASTATING HURRICANE IN
THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES...PRODUCING CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE
AND HUNDREDS OF CASUALTIES IN THE NEW ORLEANS AREA AND ALONG THE
MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST... AND ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES IN SOUTH
FLORIDA. KATRINA WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ESTIMATED 1200
DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES... MAKING IT THE DEADLIEST U. S.
HURRICANE SINCE THE PALM BEACH-LAKE OKEECHOBEE HURRICANE OF
SEPTEMBER 1928. KATRINA ALSO CAUSED AN ESTIMATED $80 BILLION
DOLLARS IN DAMAGE... MAKING IT THE COSTLIEST U. S. HURRICANE ON
RECORD.

ONE DEATH WAS ATTRIBUTED TO OPHELIA...A DROWNING ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERN COAST OF FLORIDA. THE STORM CAUSED AN ESTIMATED $1.6
BILLION IN THE UNITED STATES...WITH SIGNIFICANT BEACH EROSION NOTED
FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST SOUTHWARD TO THE CENTRAL FLORIDA
COAST.

AROUND THE TIME OF STAN'S EXISTENCE...TORRENTIAL RAINS CAUSED SEVERE
FLASH FLOODS AND MUD SLIDES OVER PORTIONS OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL
AMERICA...INCLUDING GUATEMALA...EL SALVADOR...NICARAGUA... HONDURAS
...AND COSTA RICA. THE ESTIMATED DEATH TOLL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
WEATHER SYSTEM RANGES FROM 1000-2000. AS BEST AS CAN BE DETERMINED
...STAN ITSELF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 80 OF THESE DEATHS.

AT THIS TIME...22 DEATHS HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO WILMA.
WILMA CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE IN NORTHEASTERN YUCATAN...INCLUDING
CANCUN AND COZUMEL...AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA. THE HURRICANE ALSO
PRODUCED MAJOR FLOODING OVER WESTERN CUBA. DAMAGE IN THE UNITED
STATES IS ESTIMATED AT $14.4 BILLION.

DELTA TURNED EASTWARD
AND BECAME A VIGOROUS EXTRATROPICAL LOW ON 28 NOVEMBER ABOUT 350
MILES WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE CANARY ISLANDS. THE EXTRATROPICAL LOW
BROUGHT WIND GUSTS OF HURRICANE FORCE TO THE CANARY ISLANDS ON 28
NOVEMBER BEFORE WEAKENING AND MOVING INTO MOROCCO ON 29 OCTOBER.
SEVEN DEATHS ON OR NEAR THE CANARY ISLANDS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
EXTRATROPICAL STAGE OF DELTA.

SUMMARY TABLE

NAME              DATES       MAX WIND   DEATHS   U.S. DAMAGE
        MPH          $MILLION
---------------------------------------------------------------
TS  ARLENE      8-13 JUN         70         1      MINOR
TS  BRET       28-29 JUN         40         1          0
TS  CINDY       3-7  JUL         70         1      MINOR
H   DENNIS      4-13 JUL        150        41       1840
H   EMILY      11-21 JUL        155         5      MINOR
TS  FRANKLIN   21-29 JUL         70         0          0
TS  GERT       23-25 JUL         45         0          0
TS  HARVEY      2-8  AUG         65         0          0
H   IRENE       4-18 AUG        105         0          0
TD  TEN        13-14 AUG         35         0          0
TS  JOSE       22-23 AUG         50         6          0
H   KATRINA    23-30 AUG        175      1200      80000
TS  LEE        28 AUG - 1 SEP    40         0          0
H   MARIA       1-10 SEP        115         0          0
H   NATE        5-10 SEP         90         0          0
H   OPHELIA     6-17 SEP         85         1       1600
H   PHILIPPE   17-24 SEP         80         0          0
H   RITA       18-26 SEP        175         6       9400
TD  NINETEEN   30 SEP - 2 OCT    30         0          0
H   STAN        1-5  OCT         80       100          0
TS  TAMMY       5-6  OCT         50         0      MINOR
STD TWENTY-TWO  8-10 OCT         35         0          0
H   VINCE       9-11 OCT         75         0          0
H   WILMA      15-25 OCT        175        22      14400
TS  ALPHA      22-24 OCT         50        20          0
H   BETA       26-31 OCT        115         0          0
TS  GAMMA      13-20 NOV         55        37          0
TS  DELTA      22-28 NOV         70         0          0
TS  EPSILON    29 NOV - ?? DEC   70         0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE...DATES BASED ON COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME (UTC)

FORECASTER STEWART/BEVEN/AVILA/FRANKLIN/KNABB/PASCH
 
  
$$

I suggest we pool our money and give the TPC a nice vacation to somewhere cold and dry. How about two weeks in Tibet? Greenland? --Golbez 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, they'll need the break. They will also need a lot of rest this winter as all signs point to a nasty 2006... CrazyC83 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Cindy will upgraded to a hurricane and Emily will be upgraded to Category 5, just as most of us thought they would be!!! We've already seen Dennis have revisions on the post-mortem (involving the track with two more landfalls than first thought) CrazyC83 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat disturbed that they're only attributing 80-100 deaths to Stan. Very strange, and potentially a little insulting. Very different from what everyone else seems to think. --AySz88^-^ 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They say the 1000-2500 other deaths were caused by rain not directly from Stan. Also interesting, they confirm the Tammy track into the south (rather than northeast) and make no mention of the northeast flooding as being a result of it. Jdorje 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can always hope for this active phase to end quickly. Or we can also hope for several of the strongest El Nino's ever recorded (El niño estupendo) if you will, that will cause an Atlantic November report something like this...

THE 20XX ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON WAS THE LEAST ACTIVE ON RECORD... WITH
THREE NAMED STORMS FORMING... BREAKING THE RECORD OF FOUR SET SINCE SATELLITE 
OBSERVATIONS BEGAN. THREE TROPICAL STORMS FORMED. NO STORMS BECAME HURRICANES.
THE SEASON ALSO INCLUDED TWO DEPRESSIONS THAT DID NOT REACH STORM STRENGTH...

Now that is my kind of hurricane season. Of course, it probably isn't gonna happen. Michelle T 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Delta's article be revised?? The season summary states that Delta become a subtropical storm on the 22nd before becoming a tropical storm on the 23rd. tdwuhs

From the featured article criteria:

A featured article should have the following attributes:

1. It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet.
2. It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. :Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
   • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
   • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
   • (c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources);
   • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
   • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars;
3. It should comply with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
   • (a) a succinct lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
   • (c) a substantial, but not overwhelmingly large, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
4. It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
5. It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles.

In my opinion, several of this season's hurricane articles meet the criteria. Now, it might be a good idea to get the official recognition for those. It might be a good idea to nominate one of our articles for featured article status (or ask for peer review). Now, the question is, which one should we nominate? Personally, I would say Hurricane Dennis or Hurricane Emily are the most stable, so they might go up first. But if you think another one is better, then which one should we select? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I would have said Hurricane Katrina. It set the standard for hurricane articles, but it isn't the most stable article and has some dispute points. I'm trying to think of what new features were introduced with each article. Here are some I know of:

• Infoboxes - last season with Ivan
• Death toll list - Katrina (when it hit Florida)
• Active storm template - Rita
• Standardization of lists and subtitles - Katrina as a trial balloon, Rita for good
• Color coding - A while back with the category chart page

Based on those, I would say Hurricane Rita was the turning point (after that, even the mainstream media started using our numbers - i.e. the USA Today statistics). Katrina was where we experimented with new features (before it became the news story of the year), but Rita was our first storm that we really applied them all. It was also far more stable, very comprehensive and we really went out of our way to get all the information, without the extreme difficulty of Katrina. Hence, I nominate Hurricane Rita. CrazyC83 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like Hurricane Dennis better. It is more concise, pictures are better placed and word economy is excellent. I like articles that don't babble or stutter. Dennis gets my vote.-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should also pick featured articles for the Portal:Tropical Cyclones. This portal has its own set of featured articles, which I have set up to rotate weekly. The current featured article is Hurricane Andrew, and I've set next week's to be Hurricane Dennis. Here we have a lot more flexibility, as the featured article can provide us not only with a way of presenting certain articles but also as an incentive to improve them. The criteria, of course, should be the same. Jdorje 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That means we have less than a week to improve the Dennis article, or pick a new article to be next week's feature. Of course this portal is not official yet (it's not listed on the templated list), so we don't have to be entirely strict. Jdorje 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Dennis or Rita have a references section, unlike Hurricane Wilma, so that would not qualify them for featured status. --tomf688^{talk} 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be hard to fix. Give them a descent refernces section. Dennis is formatted better. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The references section in Wilma is completely tangled up from anons coming and adding new sources to the article without following the Footnote3 format. It will have to be fixed. Making one for Dennis shouldn't be hard, and that also gives us a chance to fact-check the article for inaccuracies. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those non-footnoted links I did; I think that footnotes should only be done after a storm is long past and things calm down; it is too hard to remember and make multiple links when information is fast flowing. It also allows us to remove broken links. CrazyC83 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to change the references to the Footnote3 format, in preparation for a FAC. I'll have to go soon, so someone may want to continue where I left off. The Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations page will be very helpful to whomever keeps doing it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff Masters: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
• and his source: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/nov2005/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.9.83 (talk • contribs) 05:21, December 2, 2005 (UTC)

(HurricaneCraze32)

I know there's been trouble with some reading showing Emily being a Category 5 hurricane not just a Cat.4. What i've always done is make it a 4/5 Hurricane so make it half orange and half red. I'll try it out in the sandbox to see if i can make it.Its only a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.30.16 (talk • contribs) 19:02, December 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just wait for the TCR and go with the Category given there. --Ajm81 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know.But its just like a sub thing till the category is given. --User:HurricaneCraze32

Wait for the official report. --tomf688^{talk} 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That the NHC/WMO is going to abandon the use of Greek letters by next year. Anything to back that up? --CFIF 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search on Google News, but did not find anything. --tomf688^{talk} 14:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be revise Delta's article? The NHC November report stated that it became a subtropical storm on the 22 before turning into a tropical storm on the 23rd. So should be revise it? tdwuhs

I'm a bit wary towards that season summary. Let's wait until the official report for that particular storm comes out, since it will likely be much more thorough. --tomf688^{talk} 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There're some good images of most of the storms here. Some might be useful for editing down on the main page. Others are kind of weird (like TS Delta). There's already a couple of images for Hurricane Epsilon. Good kitty 02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never much cared for the pics on that site. Really good pics are here: [15], [16], [17]. These pages have some of the best pics I've seen. I have tons of good sat-photo websites in my favorites. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we split Hurricane Epsilon onto it's own page?

It's notable because

1. It's a December Hurricane
2. It's the 26th named storm of the year, meaning if no letters were skipped, this would be storm Z
3. Currently, it's the last tropical storm of the most active season ever
4. Currently, it's the highest Greek-lettered storm ever

(3&4 are not the same, even if they are currently functionally equivalent)

I admit if there's another storm, reasons 3&4 are dropped, but that does not exclude reasons 1&2.

— 132.205.44.134 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it causes some damage, it would be better to leave it as-is. The hurricane is a fish-spinner right now, and there isn't anything particularily interesting that we could say on a daughter article that we couldn't say here. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 07:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From here:

Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.

I find that the way every TC season article is introduced with the dates does not make for interesting reading. In a sense this is a question of interesting writing versus good reference writing; however, to qualify as a featured article (for instance) both need to be satisfied. I wanted to use the 2004 AHS for a featured article in the Portal:Tropical Cyclones (see here), and although it's my belief that the article summary should just be copied directly to use for the featured-article summary, this paragraph is just too tedious to include (so I skipped it and took the second paragraph). Now, my suggestion is that - for all single-season articles - this dating paragraph be moved down into the newly-created first section of the article, which can be called "Season dates" or something to that effect. Jdorje 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had gone ahead and swapped the paragraphs - I didn't see any reason not to - but E. Brown reverted it with "this belongs at the beginning, it's always been formatted that way". :/ (I suppose he hadn't seen this yet.) --AySz88^-^ 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well...he's right, it is a standard that that paragraph goes first...look at all 150+ AHS articles and you'll find it's that way. If it is to be changed we must come to a consensus first. Jdorje 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed fully. I reverted it for the reasons Tom has just stated. And because it looked sloppy. There was no transition between the two paragraphs the way you guys re-ordered them. Jdorje, I am a full advocate for 2004AHS as a featured article in the tropical cyclones portal. That article is so well formatted. The information is well stated. Word economy is good, so there's less chatter. One or two more pics could hurt. And not I DO NOT mean ten or twelve. I mean one or two. Then buff up the references section and it will be perfect. I think this article should have been modeled on 2004, but apparently others thought differently. Sigh -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• doesn't remember stating anything* :) I do agree, though, that the intro paragraphs are a bit technical and uninteresting. Considering how loooong these articles are, they need a good intro to keep people's attention. --tomf688^{talk} 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]