Jump to content

Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RattleMan (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 7 January 2006 (Archive even more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Hurricane

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.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
Monthly Event Archives: June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Storm Event Archives: Katrina - Rita - Wilma - Epsilon
Specialized Discussion: /Records - /Speculation - /Betting Pools - /Records Not Broken
Other Basin Talkpages: Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian


From the featured article criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. That means we have less than a week to improve the Dennis article, or pick a new article to be next week's feature. Of course this portal is not official yet (it's not listed on the templated list), so we don't have to be entirely strict. Jdorje 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Dennis or Rita have a references section, unlike Hurricane Wilma, so that would not qualify them for featured status. --tomf688{talk} 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be hard to fix. Give them a descent refernces section. Dennis is formatted better. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The references section in Wilma is completely tangled up from anons coming and adding new sources to the article without following the Footnote3 format. It will have to be fixed. Making one for Dennis shouldn't be hard, and that also gives us a chance to fact-check the article for inaccuracies. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those non-footnoted links I did; I think that footnotes should only be done after a storm is long past and things calm down; it is too hard to remember and make multiple links when information is fast flowing. It also allows us to remove broken links. CrazyC83 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dennis

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

Ok, I've now submitted it as a FAC. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis for more details. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our Next Featured Article

With the FAC for Hurricane Dennis going very well (looks like its about to be confirmed), I think it's time we start cleaning up another article for a FAC nomination. Emily, Katrina, Rit and Wilma all certainly have enough information available and exhaustive enough articles to eventually become FACs. Katrina still has some disputes and none of the final reports have been released, but that should not prevent cleaning up, copyediting and formatting sources in Footnote style, etc. We should choose another article to start working on for a FAC; personally, I think Rita is the most likely to have a storm report soon, and it is also probably the closest to ready for a FAC. Any opinions? - Cuivienen 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina set the standard, but the article is a mess; a lot of information needs to be moved to subpages (it is all relevant, but belongs elsewhere). Hurricane Emily would be my next nomination, or Hurricane Rita if slight cleanup is done (to get a 2005-standard article nominated - that being a post-Katrina article when we really began to standardize everything). CrazyC83 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rita appears to be the closest. I want to nominate Ivan from 2004 even soon than that. The sooner it can be readied for peer review, the better. There are some tweaks that need to be done first. 2004AHS is also on the list. Tom, Tito and I have discussed this on my talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 21 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)

Definitely agree, it looked 100% better before the change. --Ajm81 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. CrazyC83 20:45, 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. CrazyC83 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "direct link from the footnote"? Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature ★ 21:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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. --Ajm81 08:54, 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.) crandles 12:02, 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.) crandles 15:58, 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★) Contribs 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized why there are so many footnotes now. There are several that are listed multiple times. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is your browser reloading the page? It shouldn't be. What browser are you using? --AySz88^-^ 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I click on one of the footnotes, it does reload the page and then go to the bottom. I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've resized the font in the footnotes section to make it take up less room on the model from the 1997 Pacific hurricane season. It looks better, but we really should condense those advisory links into one link. - Cuivienen 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Footnote style

  1. Thelb4 12:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old in-line links

  1. crandles 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature nosign ★ 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keith Edkins 20:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ajm81 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jake 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limited number of footnotes

  1. AySz88^-^ 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (make the "advisories on..." links the way they were, takes away 30ish of them)[reply]
  2. Thelb4 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mark J 17:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Agree with AySz88.[reply]
  4. Cuivienen 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old-style when current, reformat later

  1. CrazyC83 17:00, 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]
  2. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC), it should be done, but only after all the flurry of activity is over. By the way, Hurricane Dennis is undergoing that same process. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the endnotes on this page. 132.204.227.73 14:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already taken notice of this. See above section. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, so it's not forgotten later - the footnotes are mismatched again (for example, the ones linking to the Dedos de Dios pictures are wrong). I think it'll have to wait to be fixed after the article becomes stable (damn Zeta). --AySz88^-^ 03:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can use the newer citation format, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


New infoboxes-having pic probs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32

The link to the updates i made to those infoboxes. I added the Catgeory that was their peak intensity and even made a link to the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Read the link. And give me your opinion,.

user:HurricaneCraze32

Uh, I absolutely don't think the ACE of the storm, which is a rather quite useless value, should be included in the infobox. However I do think the idea of adding the highest category could be a good idea; see User:Jdorje/Sandbox. However I haven't quite figured out how to do this in the context of the templates while still making it work across all basins. I'm okay with using the US-centrism of applying the SSS to typhoons and tcyclones in all basins, but it's not correct to call them "hurricane"s. Jdorje 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similar "useless" values are in a lot of other infoboxes, such as the Effective radiated power thing for broadcast stations (see WWL-TV). If someone puts it in as an optional value, I don't see the harm. --AySz88^-^ 16:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Looks like nobody listed the hurricane box at Wikipedia:Infobox. --AySz88^-^ 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i had trouble getting the ace rating in the table-i did it right-it didnt show up for some reason. Now i've also added the storm number to the infoboxes.I was actually able to make a lot more. They're missing pics though.

User:HurricaneCraze32

Take a look at [1]. It looks really good... Jdorje 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just replace our Infobox with Modèle:Cyclone? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that easily, because we don't want to break all of the hundreds of infoboxes we have now and I'm not too excited about making a new one from scratch. However I've started merging in some of the new fields that they have...changing the formats (colors) is another thing to be done. Jdorje 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, the winter is the time to make changes (those are AMAZING)...and yes, now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS, including fish-spinners and tropical depressions...I might make sandbox articles for Arlene, Bret, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, TD10, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, TD19, Tammy, TD22, Delta and Epsilon... CrazyC83 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the infoboxes have pics now, something's wrong with Harvey,Maria and Phillippe. There's no pic for the TD and STD's.Update:Maria,Phillippe and harvey's pics have been replaced by paths and most of the others are ready for use.

HurricaneCraze32 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we going to put them, on their own separate articles? CrazyC83 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS" There's your answer right in your own sentence. HurricaneCraze32 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All completed. Just inform me on anymore things to add.Lemme put them in ok.HurricaneCraze32 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first of my test-articles are completed. The links to completed ones will be added below (italics indicate article already exists):

Arlene - Bret - Cindy - Dennis - Emily - Franklin - Gert - Harvey - Irene - TD10 - Jose - Katrina - Lee - Maria - Nate - Ophelia - Philippe - Rita - TD19 - Stan - Tammy - TD22 - Vince - Wilma - Alpha - Beta - Gamma - Delta - Epsilon- Zeta

I started with those three because Maria and Epsilon were long-lasting storms with long and interesting stories and TD19 was probably the least notable storm of the season and I wanted to test what an article would look like for a storm that did nothing and quickly would be forgotten. CrazyC83 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt it be easier to at least add the storm number to the infobox like i have.HurricaneCraze32 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think adding the storm number to the infobox is appropriate, because numbering depends on what is considered to be an enumerable storm and that varies by basin and time. Storms in a different basin or from older seasons may not be numbered the same, and thus renumbering is possible. Jdorje 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are individual storm articles though. CrazyC83 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus i think we're gonna need a color for STD. (Because of 22)HurricaneCraze32 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same as for a tropical depression. Likewise when we get to 2004, Nicole will get the same color as the tropical storms. We should disregard the prefix "sub" and treat them as tropical. CrazyC83 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the new track maps, the color only indicates wind strength. Tropical/subtropical/extratropical are indicated a different way. In the infoboxes this should be done simply in text. However the {{{type}}} and {{{category}}} fields of the infobox are not set up to handle subtropical or extratropical...though this can be fixed once there's a sample infobox user to test it out on. Jdorje 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still think it would fit in:There's been notable ones:
1972
--------------
Subtropical Storm Delta
Subtropical Storm Alpha

2000
--------------
Unnamed Subtropical Storm

2005
-------------
Remnants of 22 and Tammy flood the Northeast

HurricaneCraze32 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some information that got removed from some of the summaries in this article were noted in the talk pages of the redirects; I think one's at Talk:Tropical Storm Harvey (2005). I don't think I noticed them all, so it might be wise to dive into the history. --AySz88^-^ 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.By any chance, does anyone know the mbar of hurricane Erika (1997)HurricaneCraze32 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the best track file. You can download it from NHC or from UNISYS. Jdorje 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best track file?HurricaneCraze32 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)have a link?[reply]

New section to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32#Infoboxes_of_Storms_left_for_Forgotten.28Except_Epsilon.29

(Epsilon is in the way) HurricaneCraze32 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles on every storm is a BAD idea. We've been over this before. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Let's not do this again. I've had my share of headaches dealing with all this obsessive subpage nonsense the first time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the least notable storms do not meet any of those criteria listed. This is an educational site, and it is meant for people to learn about things like this. CrazyC83 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
m:Wiki is not paper and Wikipedia:Summary style. (I wish I had those links the first time around.) --AySz88^-^ 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with the above. If we have the information, it should be inserted. Separate articles allow the season page to maintain summary style. There is no reason why information should be kept out of Wikipedia that is not vanity information. Tropical cyclones are not vanity information. - Cuivienen 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy i just thought of something. Because Tammy and STD22 worked toghether why dont we just put them toghether. Both Infoboxes in it. 22 Still needs a pic.Can someone find that pic for me? The teamwork storms of 2005. If you havent started theirs lemme do it.HurricaneCraze32 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a couple of changes-you've been using mine right.HurricaneCraze32 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I've added the year to the formed/dissipated dates, removed the storm number and made a few corrections (although the major corrections were already done on your talk page). CrazyC83 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go straight to making Zeta one ok.

HurricaneCraze32 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more comfortable if we'd wait for the final report before making an article on it. That would give us more than basic information and records to put in the article. And I'm still against articles for every storm and always will be. Many of the storms were so boring that the info on the main page is basically all we got. So for storms like that (Leecough*) should not have an article. I'm against having articles for Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Nate, Maria, Philippe, and Tammy and partially against ones for Jose, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta. All based on lack of info. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant an infobox and i have to agree with something. Crazy you seem awfully hyperHurricaneCraze32 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a bunch of talk about new articles and I was expressing my dissent. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The next FA

Ok, as Dennis is now an FA, which one goes next? Ideally, we want to send it to Peer review first. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have much to work with that's already had a storm report released. Katrina will be a part of the Article Improvement Drive soon as I cast the 18th vote yesterday, so we should hold off on Katrina until that's over with. I'd say that we should get Hurricane Rita up to FA status pending the final report or else work on a 2004 storm - any of the Florida Four would do. - Cuivienen 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan and Rita. Those are my picks, they both are the closest and need about the same amount of work. If forced to choose, I'd say Rita first, because work on it is a bunch of little things that could be taken care of in no time. Of course, Cuivienen brought up a good point about the report. Ivan or Rita, either one-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rita's easier to do, no doubt about that. It just can't immediately go for a FAC after being fixed up while Ivan could. I'd still say Rita first, though. And, on a somewhat related topic, did you know that Cyclone Tracy is a featured article? I didn't. - Cuivienen 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this article is pretty darned good... perhaps the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season should be the one to go up for a Peer Review first. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's got the same problems as Rita - waiting on Cindy, Emily and Wilma's reports (since they are likely to bring changes) and also on Zeta to dissipate. Also, given the ongoing resistance to 1997 Pacific hurricane season as a featured article despite its high quality when nominated, i think we'd be fighting an uphill battle. - Cuivienen 00:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As early as 2006, it would be 'Zeta' or 'Alberto'?

If Zeta remains in activity as far of January 1st or 2nd of 2006, could the storm still be named as Zeta (2005) or the storm will became Alberto, the 1st official storm of 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.232.131 (talk • contribs)

It stays Zeta. That's also what happened with Hurricane Alice in 1954-55. CrazyC83 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did steal the name Alice from 1955, but I agree that the name is maintained. - Cuivienen 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there weren't any satellites back then and Alice was caught on January 1 but was later proven to have developed on December 30. CrazyC83 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in, but don't wiki to know how to start a new topic. Is there a way to get to read the Tropical Storm Zeta Advisory Archive? The National Hurricane Center's link isn't working. 66.47.77.94 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, 66.47.77.94! You're right that the NHC's link for Zeta is not working. Try here: [2]. However, you won't be able to see any advisories between 5 pm AST last night and today as their archive doesn't seem to be updating (it's supposed to be automated). Update: The link actually is working now, but you still can't see any new advisories. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they rename it? That would be too confusing. The present naming system may be stupid, but I'd doubt they'd be that anal about it. :-P Good kitty 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say because it formed in 2005, they would keep the name Zeta. --Revolución (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the Hurricane season is June-November. Does this mean that naming won't start again until June, or will any possible January tropical storm be named Alberto? Perhaps someone who knows could update the article to include what the 12-month period is for the naming of storms. --65.91.102.204 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the storm forms during the offseason it will be named after the naming list. so, if a new tropical cyclone forms in January it'll be called Alberto and if one forms in December it will be named after the next name on the list--WmE 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last and final topic about ACE restoration

If Zeta survives the shear, as one model predicts, and lives to become a hurricane, then it is possible that we can have the #1 ACE season. Then it would be significant to restore ACE charts and ACE values. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum but with it approaching the 243 mark (it's currently at 240), it is now a possibility that we have the #1 year. I know the storm counts as a 2005 storm, but does the 2006 info for Zeta apply to its ACE number? And the season ended 4 minutes ago...right?! Hopquick 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It counts to 2005, just like Alice2. --24.83.100.214 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I thought. Wow. That ACE number is getting so big. :) Hopquick 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eta

Let's say Eta forms, do they name it Alberto? --Revolución (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eta can't form, it's 2006. If a storm forms now, yes, it would be Alberto. --Golbez 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment

File:Galaxy.m74.arp.750pix.jpg
The first ever Galaxy of Stars Award for Collective Accomplishment. Shazaam!

Kudos to all the editors of this page - it is one of the finest resources on the subject on the internet. Great work all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah!! Galaxy... Looks like hurricane... Make the season END! ;-) - Cuivienen 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to have a well-developed eye, so it's probably not quite a hurricane yet, Cat 1 max. :p :p :p --AySz88^-^ 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably has a well-developed eye, but there is low-level cloud cover obstructing its view... :P Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this hurricane, maybe. 24.176.93.66 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Southern Hemisphere. See the clockwise spiral. I posted a barnstar on the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons talk page because I felt that all the editors and contributors to those pages had done such an amazing job (if I do say so myself ;) ). Wikipeda now has one of the most extensive collections of historical tropical cyclone data on the World Wide Web. Jdorje, Hurricanehink, Rattleman and myself really tried hard to make the hurricane archive all that it could be. It was kind of like our own little Wikiproject. I'm really proud of what the hurricane pages have become. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reference

Why does main article: Tropical Storm Zeta in the Tropical Storm Zeta section link to it's own article (this one)? 218.214.23.223 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 or 2006

RE: Timeline -- Quote: "For continuation of Zeta, see Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season." I find this inappropriate. For Zeta is a 2005 storm and should only be refered to as a sidenote on the 2006 page. Recommendations? Hopquick 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on both pages, for convenience of users? --AySz88^-^ 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's nothing new to mention about Zeta yet. Strengthening and weakening could be added on both pages when it comes up. - Cuivienen 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta is a 2005 storm, so thus Zeta should only be casually mentioned, but not treated as if it were a storm of 2006, as is the case currently on that page. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta page

Is the Tropical Storm Zeta page really necessary? I don't think the article is long enough to merit its own page. 200.119.236.216 14:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's got enough information for those who want it and it's a current event, so I see no reason why there's a problem with it. It might not be as long as Katrina but does it really have to be? Also, as only the second Atlantic hurricane to go through to a new year, it merits some inclusion as a future article anyway.--Dan (Talk)|@ 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a zeta page there's one for all the greek storms except delta. Why doesnt't Delta have one? Shouldn't it? It destroyed a landmark after all... Jamie C 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are already working on it? --AySz88^-^ 16:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created a main article link for Delta but that currently leads to the disambiguation page (here). I was going to copy the basic template stuff over from Epsilon and modify a few details but the hurricane infobox will need to be done. In the meantime, I have requested that the redirect to Tropical Storm Delta be removed. Dan (Talk)|@ 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy was already working on it at User:CrazyC83/Delta (2005) - you can probably start with that. --AySz88^-^ 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers m'dears. Dan (Talk)|@ 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got all except for Harvey, Tammy and TD22 done at this point; I hope to get them done tonight. CrazyC83 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez people, I thought we were going to wait for the report. I suggested that up in the /97L.INVEST section. We don't have enough information. This fetish for subpages is giving me a headache. You people all lack patience. We need more than just a storm history. If that's all we have, then that article shouldn't exist. That's the case with Zeta right now. The report will probably give us more and more accurate information. The fact that Delta toppled an ancient rock formation doesen't mean that it deserves its own article. It was extratropical when it did all that anyway. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, Tammy, Beta, Delta and I'm tempted to say Epsilon don't deserve articles and I'm being generous with Vince. The fact that these storms weren't notable is important because there isn't any info beyond storm history and perhaps a few records or brief, one-sentence impact statements. Look at say Emily for example. You have storm history, preparations and evacuations, intensity info, landfall and damages and cleanup. That's a lot of good information. With Delta what do you have? Storm history, intensity info, and a short impact section. Minimal if any useful information beyond what is said in the main article. There is no point in creating articles like that, it's just stupid. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style. We shouldn't cram everything into 2005AHS, even if one thinks it's "just" storm history, intensity, and a short impact section. --AySz88^-^ 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beta definately should due to its damage. Jamie C 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys have been staring at that policy page too much. If it fits nicely in the main article (which Cindy, Delta and others do), then leave it alone. A page on Cindy is definitely unnecessary. Nothing sets it apart. It will fit just fine in the main article. When you say we shouldn't cram everything into the main article, how much cramming would we actually be doing? Not much, I think. Also, some of those details need to be removed. They just aren't notable. There's also a lot stuttering in there. Word economy is a virtue. And it's a skill many of us need to work on. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word economy's going to be as good as we're going to get it - it feels like everyone has probably combed through once or twice now (or at least, you've done it twice and I've done it once). Trim and move details; no sense in taking them off Wikipedia.
Also, I don't think one can brush Summary Style off as if we're reading too much into that policy page; I for one had already restated and applied it in my own words without being aware of such a policy.
(btw, "necessary" or "unnecessary") --AySz88^-^ 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hurricane Eric. Why? These names are going to be used again and again in the future years which might be more powerful and maybe destructive, that leaves us with making new articles with the same name, and the articles that are made on these storm, like hurricane eric said, dont even have much information, some of them are very repetitive and should be only put once on the 2005 HS page. DanielES15

That's why (2005) is added to those that have been used in the past (except for names likely to be retired, i.e. Katrina) and will be added if they are used again or agreed upon. CrazyC83 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The (2005) suffix should be added to all non-retired storms IMO. (Of course we don't want to speculate about which storms will be retired, which is why either name is okay until we find that out.) Jdorje 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course some, like Katrina, are obviously going to be retired though... CrazyC83 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the remaining articles are now complete...I just finished the last few.

Arlene - Bret - Cindy - Dennis - Emily - Franklin - Gert - Harvey - Irene - TD10 - Jose - Katrina - Lee - Maria - Nate - Ophelia - Philippe - Rita - TD19 - Stan - Tammy - TD22 - Vince - Wilma - Alpha - Beta - Gamma - Delta - Epsilon - Zeta

Have a look at them all and see what you all think. CrazyC83 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Jan Storms?

I'm wondering if there have been any other storms in Jan besides for Alice and Zeta? Reub2000 04:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No other fully tropical storms are recorded. A sub-tropical storm in 1978 is the only other record and is the only system known to have actually formed IN JANUARY.--Keith Edkins 11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added that little bit of trivia in a number of places yesterday after searching the best-track data for January storms. Note that there could have been tropical depressions in January as these aren't included in the best-track. Jdorje 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes are messed up!

Help! Someone (or someones) has mangled the footnotes! There are {{ref}}'s without {{note}}'s and vice-versa all over the place. I have fixed one and commented out two cases where someone thought the parameter the a {{ref}} was the URL being referenced! However, I cannot put more time into this tonight. --EMS | Talk 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noted this above... We should eventually change it to the new method involving <ref> and <reference>, but perhaps wait until Zeta gets out of the way and the editing rate dies down. --AySz88^-^ 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is completely messed up now, let's just go ahead and change them to <ref> and <reference> now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New findings

I was searching up information on the more obscure storms of 2005, and found this VERY interesting story from Hurricane Maria in Great Britain: [3]

Mr Rhodes said, "If it had come straight for us, the results would probably have been worse than New Orleans in terms of the amount of rain.

"There have been three hurricanes heading directly for us this year, but as it happens, none have hit us badly yet.

"Had Maria done what we expected it to, it would have come straight into Manchester and would have caused around 16 inches of rain across the central part of England and North Wales.

"No river in this country could cope with that kind of rainfall.

"We dodged a bullet, but nobody noticed or took any interest at all. We are not making any preparations at all - we aren't even acknowledging the situation."

I placed those mentions on the test article for Hurricane Maria, which seems quite informative now (especially considering I found more on the impact). CrazyC83 05:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that comes from Pentacle Magazine. From their web site: "The UK's Leading Independent Pagan Magazine - Covering All aspects of Paganism with a Green Slant. Pentacle is the Magazine of choice for all free-thinking Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, Druids, Heathens, Magickians, & Neo-Shamans." Not that I've ever heard of them before, but I'd say you should look for another source to confirm it. Jdorje 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not from Pentacle Magazine, it's a copy-and-paste of http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16174251&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=wales-faces--catastrophic-hurricane---name_page.html . --AySz88^-^ 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realized that as I did some more research. However "Stormforce" is not neutral nor a respected research institution, nor is it affiliated with the british government (from what I can find). Jdorje 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to agree that the article is dubious. It compares the risk to New York City from hurricanes to The Day After Tomorrow, for example, so I think that article is probably far too exaggerated. --AySz88^-^ 06:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as far as flodding is concerned, The Day After Tomorrow is fairly accurate to what would happen in NYC. - 168.229.34.40 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) [That was me.] - Cuivienen 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the few hunderd meter high waves that can be blocked by a simple door? 130.161.188.212 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of flooding (or "flodding", as my typo would indicate). Not in terms of ridiculous waves. 10-15 feet of floodwaters and storm surge would be accurate. - Cuivienen 15:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article. "The first hurricane to hit Britain". I think not. Jamie C 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding, have they even heard of Hurricane Charley (1986), just as the most recent one???? Hurricanes have indeed happened there before. I'm sure there have been many others. Global warming will, if anything, slow it down there as the Gulf Stream shifts...(which would make western Europe as cold as Canada) CrazyC83 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was also the Great Storm of 1987; even though it wasn't a hurricane in the sense that we're discussing, the forecasters at the time called it one. Mike H. That's hot 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles for each storm?

There's been a lot of arguing in the archives over whether each and every storm should have its own article. Mercifully, I missed most of it while running away from and cleaning up after Hurricane Rita. My personal view is that while such articles are probably a waste of time, their presence does little if any harm.

In short, I don't see any point in wasting my time telling others they can't waste theirs. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember someone stating a few months back (possibly Hurricane Eric) that the addition of storm articles for every storm would only create more links to patrol and would add nothing to Wikipedia, a viewpoint with which I agree. I know that notability is in the eye of the beholder but let's be serious, people... if TD10 is considered notable then 43=95. Sarsaparilla39 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This new idea that every storm of the season should have an article is ridiculous. Just because the season was amazing, doesn't mean Subtropical depression 22 was even slightly noteworthy. It takes away from the article. There are PLENTY more deserving hurricanes from the past than a tropical depression. Why don't people spend time on those? This website is becoming a victim of recent-ness. People find it easier to write articles about things that just happened, however les noteworthy they are than something that happened far in the past. Even if that thing in the past is well-documented. I vote to re-merge almost all those new storm articles. TrafficBenBoy 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfully said. The big 6 (D, E, K, R, S, W), Ophelia, Vince, and maybe Zeta and Epsilon (based on persistence and unusual off-season behavior), should all stay, IMO, but every other one should be condensed and redirected. Who cares about some loss of information? If it is just repetitive and all of the details can be said in a shorter space, what is wrong with that? I think those 10 I mentioned should stay, but that's just me. Hurricanehink 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the storm is worth some mention, or it wouldn't have its own section on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. But because the season was so long, the storms section is huge and the overall article is giant - much bigger than any other season article, and over twice as big as the recommended max article size. So how can it be trimmed down? Obviously by splitting it up into sub-articles. And the most logical way to divide the sub-articles is by storm. If some storms are non-notable enough that nobody ever reads the article, then at least that text (which is practically identical to the original text that is still on the season article) is now moved out of the way. The next step (which hasn't been done yet) is to cut out the storms section from the main article entirely, replacing it with the "season summary" section which already summarizes the notable points of each storm. Jdorje 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - even if one thinks those details are irrelevant, it'd still be better to move the details to other articles than to keep it here.
Response to various posts above: I don't see how the fact that other (older) articles are less detailed implies that these articles have to have that same lack of detail also. There are people working on the articles, and I don't think other editors can say that some article should be deleted because other articles "deserve more attention", as what people wish to work on is not the determination of other editors.
An article on every tropical cyclone has to be more reasonable than one on every Simpsons episode (which is already endorsed as appropriate at m:Wiki is not paper), plus it satisfies summary style. --AySz88^-^ 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose and Lee's missing images

I was tired of seeing Jose and Lee lonely without an image while all the others do, so I have added images for them.

If anyone objects or could do better than me, let me know. Wikipikarefulgenschu 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha

The NHC report for Tropical Storm Alpha is out. 200.119.236.216 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only real change was the intensity was adjusted downwards from 50 to 45 knots (60 to 50 mph). CrazyC83 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Another report is out! I was worried Zeta was stalling up the reports. Fableheroesguild 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Articles

NO!

This is STUPID! No articles for non-noteable storms! Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. These articles add no value whatsoever and should all be merged back. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, Tammy, and Delta DO NOT DESERVE ARTICLES. How could this be a good idea? Every little freaking fact about every little freaking storm does not need to be here. We want stuff that's important and meaningful. All these articles are are redundant. They just repeat exactly what is said in the main article and thus negate the purpose of the main article. I could not possibly be more against this. I will refuse to accept this unless you can give me detailed, interesting, extensive, diverse, and structured information about EACH and EVERY storm, which I am convinced you cannot do. Why? Because there isn't that much info on these storms. Why? Because the did absolutely nothing! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion then is simple: the storms section of the main article is not necessary and should be removed. All that's needed is a summary of the season (already included in the season summary) and links to the TPCs for more information. Jdorje 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with such a conclusion. --Golbez 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you do not think that a 75k, 30-page article is too long. I do think it is too long, yet all proposals for splitting it up have been refuted, mostly on the grounds of creating non-notable articles. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics has been created, but has mostly been populated with new information so this is hardly a split. Eric is arguing that information about non-notable storms is non-notable. If that's the case, why do we devote 50% of the article to such information? The entirety of the storms section is either redundant (with the season summary and with the storm articles) or non-notable. So what is its purpose? Jdorje 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the state it was in prior to the individual articles being made was just fine, apart from length, but it was a lengthy season. --Golbez 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jdorje's conclusion. This article needs to function as a summary of the season, instead of as a container for mini-articles, like it is right now. I don't understand the difficulty in transitioning from putting the information in a section of an article and in a seperate article. If it's in its own article, the notable information here is suddenly non-notable? But then adding more information that would be non-notable here would make the article more notable?
(Though, I would personally (severely) reduce the storms section instead of remove it completely - each storm should have some mention even if it's just "Tropical Storm Lee was short-lived and made landfall in Abcd, Mexico, forming in the Gulf of Mexico on x and dissipating on y.") --AySz88^-^ 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information you're talking about is already mostly provided in the "season summary" section. All that's needed is a few more sentences to mention the non-notable storms: "Three other hurricanes (Irene, Nate, and Philippe) and one tropical storm (Lee) formed far out in the Atlantic ocean and never threatened land." Jdorje 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we lose all mention of those storms in that we can't tell the story...Besides, the articles on the least-notable storms do NOT meet any of the criteria listed in the WP:NOT list shown. It just is shorter than the more notable storms. Another thing: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There are no article limits! CrazyC83 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that's why we were splitting the storms off into separate articles. But Eric's argument is that all of this information is not notable, and should not be included in wikipedia. I'm just pointing out you can't have it both ways. Eric, your argument is flawed because you are claiming it is the information that shouldn't be held in wikipedia, but you obviously don't believe this because you have already added this information to the season article. What you're actually saying is that you just don't want the extra articles. But wikipedia is not paper — if the information is to be present (which I think we all agree it should be), there is no reason why we have to structure it linearly. Jdorje 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you all have decided to take my advice about not wasting your time on this issue. Sigh. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem? Sure, the articles may not be as necessary as some other articles, but are they actually causing any harm? No. Jamie C 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm to not making articles, either. --Golbez 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdorje, no offense, but that last post didn't make any sense to me, I'm sorry. I do not believe that information shouldn't be held in Wikipedia, nor was that my argument, don't be ridiculous. I believe that having two pages that say the same thing is stupid. I believe that certain information shouldn't be held in Wikipedia. Say you were running a newspaper and you heard that your neighbor's cat got stuck in a tree, whould you run it as a story? Your expressed sentiments suggest that that answer is yes. Discretion is a virtue my friend. Now, none of my questions were answered in any of these posts.
1. Many of those articles are just direct copies of the main article sections. What value would those serve?
2. How is length an issue? The page is 76 KB long. This talk page has been over or nearly 200 KB long twice before and no one said a word...either time! Nor do I see a problem with a long page. Just look at World War Two. So that argument has no merit whatsoever.
3. The information is mostly provided in the storm summery section? Uhh, no it isn't. I see mention of many storms, but most get half a sentence. I STRONGLY disagree with AySz88 about severely reducing the main article. The main article is the life-blood of the subject. It needs to provide the most information. All sub-pages are supposed to support it (hence the prefix "sub-"). It's like wanting a confederacy, in this case an extremely loose union of sub-pages with a main article comprised of a two-paragraph summery that runs together; rather than a republic, in this case a strong union of all topics under one summery with a few affiliated territories (the subpages). I prefer the republic myself, but that's just me.
4. Could you list all of the problems you see with NOT having articles for every storm? You guys have so far only mentioned like two.
Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(before edit conflict)
  1. I don't understand your argument - why do you want details of a storm in the season article if the same storm is so non-notable that it doesn't deserve its own article? If you mean that we don't have enough information on Storm X, that's different because then there wouldn't be anything to split - but there is information to split.
  2. Such a long length is indicative of a lot of detail. I think the problem here is too much detail in an article that doesn't serve the purpose of holding that detail. Because there's no place to store those details, you are effecively arguing that the available detail is not appropriate for Wikipedia. From what I can figure, it's a lot more notable than the already-approved articles at List of Simpsons episodes.
  3. It seems to me like you're saying that the storms are so important that...they should be crammed into one article? Huh? And you're forgetting that the information still exists - it doesn't reduce the information, it's more of a reorganization.
  4. I think the burden of proof rests on your deletion of the articles, not our creation of the articles. But okay, off the top of my head:
    1. We have the information and need somewhere to put it
    2. This article is too long/crowded and needs to be split
    3. Splitting would move towards summary style
    4. If some article seems non-notable, any "non-notable" information here should be moved elsewhere anyway
    5. The existance of articles to such detail exemplifies the strengths of Wikipedia
    6. So what's the harm in creating more articles?
--AySz88^-^ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I am not arguing for the inclusion of any new information, just for reorganization of existing information into a non-linear form: separating the storms section into one small article per storm. Your argument, which you gave at the beginning of this section, is that "wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information", and therefore these articles shouldn't exist. But your argument does not apply to the articles, it applies to the information. Whether the same information exists in its own article or in a 35k segment of the season article does not make it more or less indescriminate; it is the same information.

I believe the main article is too long, because it is dominated by the storms section which is comprised mostly of tedious meteorological details. In an individual storm article (like Hurricane Katrina), these details usually account for a small portion of the article, but in the 2005 season the storms section takes up about half the article. To the average reader, this means the article will be way too dull to sit down and read through. This does not diminish the article's value as a reference, but an encyclopedia article (I believe) should also be interesting to read. In fact you yourself have complained to me that the article takes too long to load - which is one symptom of it being too long. The length of the talk page has no bearing on this. However I do realize this is an opinion, which some people (like Golbez) do not agree with.

Nor do I believe information should be duplicated (outside of summaries). The purpose of making articles for each storm is to be able to shorten the main article; however, before this could happen you merged most of those articles back (except, inexplicably, for Subtropical Depression Twenty-two (2005)).

The season summary section, for the most part, provides a better summary of the storms than the storms section does. It has no mention of Lee, but it does have quite a bit more useful information on the major storms of the season. And really, why would Lee need more than a half-sentence blurb? The season summary tells the story of the season, while the current storms section is just an indescriminate collection of information about each individual storm.

Jdorje 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after the edit conflict) Hmm. If I understand correctly, the case for not having the articles is that detailed information from Storm X is non-notable, and as a result the article on Storm X doesn't contain enough notable information to warrant the article's existance. I disagree that the information is non-notable in the first place - the storm is non-notabile from the mentality of starting from the context of the entire season, and then deciding whether something should be expounded upon. I think this is backwards in judging the notability of something when determining whether it deserves an article. Each of the storms, on its own, is probably notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. --AySz88^-^ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A logical idea

  1. Have summaries of every storm in the season article.
  2. The obvious storms get articles of their own.
  3. If we have much more notable information than the TCR does, i.e. if we have specifics on the Ophelia damage, fears, evacuations, etc., or what not, and this cannot be fit into the season article, then it should get its own article.
    • Note that this does not mean EVERY case where we have more than the TCR; if it's just a short blurb, then it can go in the summary.
  4. If we do not, then a short summary and a link to the TCR on this page is sufficient.

Comments? Yes, this would lead mostly to the status quo ante bellum but it's presented in a logical fashion. --Golbez 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round of applause. Does this mean we leave everything as it is for now, with the exception of those articles with reports already? Plus, this means we could get rid of Alpha, finally. :) Hurricanehink 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is logical for most seasons. The big problem with the 2005 season is that it leads to an article that is way too long, though I know you (Golbez) do not agree with this statement. It also leads (and will continue to lead) to tedious details bogging down an article that is otherwise full of interesting information, as excessive non-notable data (in particular, the storm histories of non-notable storms) take up a large portion of the article. While these flaws are not fatal, they prevent the article from being outstanding — which is a shame because it could be. Jdorje 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long, smong. The article is just 76KB. That's to be expected for a subject this significant. This talk page has been over 200 kb long at times and is 133 KB long now. I agree with Golbez. That's a good plan. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWEET AUNT JEMIMA, IT'S OVER

I SUPPOSE IT IS ONLY FITTING THAT THE RECORD-BREAKING 2005 ATLANTIC
HURRICANE SEASON ENDS WITH A RECORD BREAKING STORM. TODAY... ZETA
SURPASSED 1954 ALICE #2 AS THE LONGEST-LIVED TROPICAL CYCLONE TO
FORM IN DECEMBER AND CROSS OVER INTO THE NEXT YEAR. ZETA WAS ALSO
THE LONGEST-LIVED JANUARY TROPICAL CYCLONE. IN ADDITION...ZETA 
RESULTED IN THE 2005 SEASON HAVING THE LARGEST ACCUMULATED CYCLONE
ENERGY...OR ACE... SURPASSING THE 1950 SEASON. SO... UNTIL THE 2006
SEASON BEGINS... UNLESS ZETA SOMEHOW MAKES AN UNLIKELY MIRACLE
COMEBACK... THIS IS THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER SIGNING OFF FOR
2005... FINALLY.

--Golbez 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least they put that disclaimer in. Then again, how long until the 2006 season gets underway for good? CrazyC83 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At last. NHC needs 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. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 02:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sea surface is cooling, but reluctantly. The Atlantic retains the ability to generate these "Vince-type" storms, but no as much as even a week ago. Also, the Carribean remains warm (but is also cooling), and a storm could form there if the upper level winds relax enough. For January 2006, I will repeat what I wrote earlier: The tropics still have a bag of tricks available, but will have trouble reaching into that bag. If the right conditions arise, another storm could well form this winter, but at the same time I see that as being somewhat unlikely. Note however, that in a normal winter I would call such an event highly unlikely. As for this coming hurricne seaon, I see an ocean that is going to be very warm this year, and over a much larger area than last year. Once the 2006 hurricane season really gets going, things may be very, very interesting. --EMS | Talk 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=34205430"