Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please try to keep off-topic discussion and speculation unrelated to the upkeep of the article, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, to a minimum. If you must put speculation here, please visit the subpage /Speculation and write it there.

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

Events specific to: June - July - August (excluding Hurricane Katrina) - Katrina - September - October (excluding Hurricane Wilma) - Wilma

For discussions on records set during the 2005 season, see /Records.

For speculative discussions on the 2005 season, see /Speculation.

For Informal Betting Pools during the 2005 season, see /Betting Pools.

For the records not broken during the 2005 season, see /Records Not Broken.

November

Week 1

It's pretty quiet out there - a promising sign that the hurricane season is finally winding down - or is it just a lull with another record (relatively speaking) pulse of activity coming? Remember in 1995, November was quiet... CrazyC83 04:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

92L.INVEST

AoI:10W4A: Lesser Ant.

8 AM Discussion:

CENTRAL ATLANTIC TROPICAL WAVE ALONG 47W S OF 19N MOVING
W 10-15 KT. A WELL-DEFINED AND ALMOST CIRCULAR LOW-LEVEL
CIRCULATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAVE. CONVECTION REMAINS
LIMITED AND DISPLACED WEST WITH SCATTERED MODERATE/ISOLATED
STRONG CONVECTION IN A SMALL AREA W OF THE WAVE FROM 12N-16N
BETWEEN 45W-51W. 

11:30 AM TWO:

AN AREA OF POORLY ORGANIZED SHOWER ACTIVITY ABOUT 650 MILES EAST OF
THE LESSER ANTILLES IS ASSOCIATED WITH A WESTWARD MOVING TROPICAL
WAVE. SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SYSTEM COULD OCCUR OVER THE
NEXT DAY OR SO. 

And the recon plan for tomorrow:

OUTLOOK FOR SUCCEEDING DAY: PSBL LOW LEVEL INVEST NEAR
15N AND 61W FOR 31/1800Z. 

Could we see an invest at NRL soon? [1] -- RattleMan 14:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TROPICAL WAVE WHICH IS ALONG 49W/50W SOUTH
OF 19N MOVING WEST 10 TO 15 KT REALLY LOOKS GREAT ON VISIBLE
SATELLITE IMAGERY. CYCLONIC FLOW IN THE LOW CLOUDS COVERS THE 
ATLANTIC WATERS FROM 10N TO 17N BETWEEN 45W AND 56W. SCATTERED
MODERATE TO ISOLATED STRONG SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS FROM
13N TO 17N BETWEEN 48W AND 55W. SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF
THIS SYSTEM MAY OCCUR DURING THE NEXT DAY OR SO.

Uh oh, "really looks great"? AySz88^-^ 20:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT THE SHOWER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A TROPICAL WAVE LOCATED ABOUT 600 MILES EAST OF THE LESSER ANTILLES IS SHOWING SOME SIGNS OF ORGANIZATION. UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE BECOMING A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE FOR SLOW DEVELOPMENT DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS THE SYSTEM MOVES WESTWARD. tdwuhs

Brother Gamma may be preparing to pledge the Greek Letter Society.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I can take another tropical Frat boy here :D. They're causing too much heartburn. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

92L.INVEST

And it's now an invest. -- RattleMan 00:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

10:30 PM TWO:

SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT THE SHOWER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A
TROPICAL WAVE LOCATED ABOUT 550 MILES EAST OF THE LESSER ANTILLES
IS SHOWING SOME SIGNS OF ORGANIZATION. UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE
BECOMING A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE FOR SLOW DEVELOPMENT DURING THE
NEXT DAY OR TWO AS THE SYSTEM MOVES WESTWARD. 

-- RattleMan 02:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

East of the Lesser Antilles? Could become Gamma, but the November preferred tracks say storms move northward - so he'd be gone fishin' if he forms (whatever fish he can find up there)... CrazyC83 15:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

11:30 AM Tropical Weather Outlook makes it sound like this one won't be joining the Greek Letter Society after all.(Let's hope they've switched to "Spin the Fishie" as their hazing ritual...the previous ones have been dangerous).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the eastern Carribean remains warm [2], and that this tropical wave is now beyond that over the warmest waters and but is heading towards the now cooler waters of the western Carribean and the Gulf of Mexico. However, I don't see us as "out of the woods" yet: This invest could still develop if the upper level winds shear dies down, and I expect at least one November storm in any case. As for going fishing: By that logic Beta should not have headed into Nicaragua. As a practical matter, each storm and even each season has its own personality, and so the next storm will go where it chooses to go. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS OVER THE CARIBBEAN SEA SOUTH OF HISPANIOLA ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A TROPICAL WAVE. THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT...IF ANY...SHOULD BE SLOW TO OCCUR.

Looks like this one doesn't want to give up. tdwuhs

Nope, it's dead. Navy removed it from their site, and NHC says "CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS OVER THE CARIBBEAN SEA SOUTH OF HISPANIOLA HAVE DECREASED.", though I don't think that's the same 92L, but a different wave. -- RattleMan 03:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything else?

The models have been very consistent in keeping relatively low pressures, and favorable conditions, over the Caribbean for a number of days. A few hint towards the area where Beta formed, but with nothing conclusive. Certainly this is the area to watch for the next week... but for now, check the models once or twice a day, and lets try to remember that we all had hobbies before the hurricane season of 2005 did away with 'em. --The Great Zo 15:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Right now, it's all clear. A rare break indeed - a sign that the season is winding down. CrazyC83 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...
TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH THURSDAY.
FORECASTER PASCH
$$ 

-- RattleMan 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been awhile since I have a TWO like that, nice to finally see it. --Holderca1 23:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting spot of convection down near Beta territory. Not much circulation to it though and no sign pressures are falling. The whole world seems to be quieting down. Typhoon Kai-tak, the most recent tropical cyclone anywhere in the world just moved into Vietnam this morning and is dissipating. Otherwise, all is quiet on the Western Front (and the eastern, and southern fronts too :D). The world's largest bank of dry air has lodged itself over the Gulf of Mexico. It's been there since not long after Wilma formed. Season appears over for the obliterated Gulf coast. The eastern Atlantic, largely inactive for most of the season, appears done (Saharan Air appears there to stay). Waters have gotten cold north of Bermuda, they're done. If we get a Gamma, it will most likely be in the Caribean or somewhere between 10N to 25N and 55W to 85W. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Anywhere in the tropical Atlantic and it is likely a fish-spinner. The Gulf of Mexico is generally too unstable in November for development. CrazyC83 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, check this out (320x240 MPEG-1 is the best). It shows SSTs, clouds (storms), and wind patterns, all changing as you view them up to October 26th. -- RattleMan 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics

The Project

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

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

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

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

---

July 25

July 25 - site has undergone a major update. I now have lists made for the 9th and 10th storms. It is very interesting to note that, at this point on the list, there are three years that are FAR ahead of everything else - 1933, 1936, and 1995. It is also interesting to note that 2005 is WAY ahead of the curve for even those three extremes! Additionally, who would have thought that, in the crazy year of 1995, one of the more inconsequential storms (Jerry) would hold the record for fastest-tenth-storm ever?

As the other part of the major update, I added some simple numerical graphics behind each table to make it a heck of a lot easier to find stuff while scrolling through. The site was beginning to be a mess of indistinguishable tables, and this helps that immensely. LINK TO THE SITE The Great Zo 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

July 27 - I created a spinoff page which is linked from the main site. This new research page focuses on a few data sets exclusive to Category 5 storms (of which there are 25). The Great Zo 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at that list, Ethel is the one that strikes me. 981 mb and a Category 5??? That seems unrealistic and more typical of a Category 1 hurricane! I know that it jumped quickly from a Cat 1 to 5 back to 1 within 24 hours, I wonder if it really was a Cat 5 or if there was an error in reporting? CrazyC83 00:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ethel was a weird storm. The Monthly Weather Review on it is ambiguous, but it aparently did undergo a record intensification period. The pressure reading of 981 millibars was taken from it as a strong Category 1. No pressure readings exist from it as a Category 5.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. As noted below the chart, "It should be obvious that some of these storms likely had lower pressure readings than those that are printed here, but that proper observations or estimations could not be made for those times." Nowhere else is that more evident than with Ethel. The 981 MB reading was taken from a time when it was far weaker. The Great Zo 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

---

October 2

Moved down "the curve" again... saw someone already updated it with Stan's not-so-ahead-of-pace reading. :)

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

The site has been updated to reflect Stan as 2nd place... but out of only four seasons to make it to 18 storms, needless to say that's still very impressive. Hurricane Research Site The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When does Tammy have to develop now? (It will have to be out of TD21) CrazyC83 15:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Tammy has until October 25... which is likely plenty of time. The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, we may already have Tammy's baby picture, there is a mid level cyclonic disturbance over the mid-atlantic. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tammy will most likely come from 92L. -- RattleMan 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed she has. And 20 days up on 1933. This is like watching Barry Bonds chase Ruth's slugging percentage record - every day you realize that the only thing comparable is from the great depression. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Site has been updated for Tammy on October 5, 2005, at 11:30Z (darn those odd-timed special advisories!) Congratulations... we're now in a three-way tie for the second most active season on record! The Great Zo 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, bring out the champagne.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll pop the proverbial (and sarcastic) cork when we hit Alpha ;D The Great Zo 03:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'targets' for Vince and Wilma are 26 Oct. 0900Z and and 15 Nov. 1500Z. (Zo's site seems to have gone missing at the moment)--Keith Edkins 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

After that, we're in uncharted territory...have you planned the new charts for latest in each category (based on last advisory at that strength) and latest last storm (based on time of dissipation or becoming extratropical)? CrazyC83 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Workin' on the site problem as we speak - as I use a friend's server who basically just set the thing up in his basement, it's subject to occasional glitch-ups and outages (the one before this one was caused by his cat kicking over his router, for example). As for working on more projects such as those, I do feel those are great ideas - but it's not something I want to do during the school year. I just don't have the time right now, but sure would like to work on that kind of stuff eventually! The Great Zo 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Vince is on. We have over a month to tie the record in a "speedy" fashion. The Great Zo 14:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

October 17

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

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

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

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

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

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 [3]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaps

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

Here are the gaps we've had without any storms. Total time as of Oct. 28: 47 days, 16 hours (only 31.7% of the time!). Only 5 weeks remain in the season. --Golbez 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC), CrazyC83 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Season started: June 1 0400Z (I'm assuming at midnight eastern)
• TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.
  • A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Article

Is an article on Alpha really neccesary at this point? Maybe, if God forbids, it wrecks havoc on Hispaniola but at it present state I do not see the need. Only thing is it's the only storm to use a greek letter but that's it. tdwuhs

no need for separate article yet, but why was the link to NHC forecast/advisory removed?

If it wreaks havoc on Hispaniola, then yes, an article would be necessary. Even if it were only a tropical storm upon landfall. --Revolución (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the paths of Wilma an Alpha. Is there a possibility those two meet each other? And what happens if that happens?

I think they are both going to be absorbed by the frontal system that is coming through at about the same time. --Holderca1 15:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Alpha will be absorbed by Wilma before the resulting storm merges into the frontal system and becomes a strong winter storm.Momoko 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the forecast paths don't show them crossing. As for what would happen if two storms merged, the answer depends on too many factors to give a general answer. (Have any two storms merged?) Tompw 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, two storms have merged before. bob rulz 20:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it's happened this year in the Pacific, when Kenneth absorbed Lydia. In 1995, we had Iris swallow up Karen... well, not literally, but you know what I mean. B.Wind 09:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be Max absorbing Lidia.Momoko 10:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, Alpha is going to merge into Wilma... but prevoiusly it wasn't forecast to. Tompw 10:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Alpha's death toll has gone up to 26. Although it may not be similar to Stan's, it seems to me that this is going to keep rising. Perhaps, an article should be created? --Cool Genius 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes --Revolución (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we need an article, after all, there won't be any other Alphas soon... hopefully. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)\

Maybe a year from now unless they change how they name storms. --Holderca1 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I oppose an article. Most of the information is in the 2005 article anyway. What more could be added without making it too long. Heck, the summary for Katrina is longer than the entire Alpha article. No offense to Hispaniola, but any storm it seems can cause major damage there. A tropical wave early last year caused 2000 deaths. What about other storms that caused more than 25 deaths? Should Bret from 1993, a tropical storm, get its own article because it killed 184 people in Venezuela? What about Gert that killed 76 in the same year? Isabel in 1985 for killing 180 in Puerto Rico? Beryl in 1982 for killing 115 in the Cape Verdes? Tropical Storms and Hurricanes are deadly, but an article isn't needed for every storm that killed 22 or so people. Sure, it is important now, but in the long run, it will seem like any other storm. It is noteworthy for being the first Greek storm ever by running out of names, but if you look at the storm at itself, it isn't very important. I vote for no article split. Hurricanehink 02:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I support an article if it is long enough to justify it, otherwise leave it where it is. 26 dead in Haiti isn't worthy of retirement (if 26 were dead in the US, or Mexico, or even Cuba, then that would be a good candidate), so it shouldn't be moved automatically on that thought. Due to the presence of the disambiguation page, the article should be at Tropical Storm Alpha (2005). (If there was no disambiguation, it should be at the main article) CrazyC83 15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should stay right where it is. It's important even in just being the first to resort to the Greek alphabet to name a storm, and even more so for the 26 people it has killed. There's also too much information to merge it back here. Frankly, I think if there's ever enough information for something to have its own article, there's no reason to force it onto a parent article. Holding it here just means that pieces will need to be clipped off, and even if it doesn't seem notable enough for an article now, considering Wikipedia's rate of expansion all new tropical storms will probably have independent articles within a couple years. I don't see a good reason for a merger. Sarge Baldy 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There isn't any additional information in the seperate article that isn't in the main article, it was just divided into sections. I actually checked by looking at the edit history from the time the article was created by copy and pasting the section from the main article until today. Nothing new has been added. --Holderca1 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I don't think it all should be here. This article is already 77k, which is far above the 32k suggested article size. If anything this article needs more branches for primary discussion on these storms. I don't think this is the place to discuss all storms comprehensively, and it means a lot more expansion to this page. At the same time it discourages expansion to each individual storm, since you can only say so much here before you put too much weight on that tropical storm to keep this page sensibly balanced. Sarge Baldy 22:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Season Speed

With the speed of this season we are going to have storms into December and maybe even January? Having a year long season like the Pacific Ocean would be scary. tdwuhs

• • You mean like this one, the Season with the Two Alices? B.Wind 09:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a long season, it just had a storm form at an extremely unusual time. That season had only 11 storms. Now if you want to talk about brutal seasons, I could speak to that. Long season. Sheer murder. Unrelenting season. Brutal season. Relentless season. Endless season. Merciless season. And...The season from Hell. My opinion on the worst season in any basin in terms of relentless storm activity was the 1997 Pacific typhoon season. That season had 31 storms overall (not far behind the 1971 typhoon season with 35), 24 typhoons/hurricanes, 13 major hurricanes, and 10 Category 5s! (Isa, Nestor, Rosie, Winnie, Oliwa, Ginger, Ivan, Joan, Keith, and Paka. Bing nearly became number 11.) I don't know how the Far East functions, I really don't. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I like "The Season from Hell." Makes for a good nickname for this season. bob rulz 03:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually a storm in January would be in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. --Holderca1 21:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

infobox?

Why doesn't the article have an infobox? Well, one problem is (amazingly) it seems impossible to find a season track map. But nonetheless I think this infobox should be added. Jdorje 19:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Because so much stuff is unavailable. "not available", "so far", "so far", strongest storm needs a "so far", "not available", etc. --Golbez 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well then let's drop the "so far"s since they are implied. How's this? Jdorje 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify...since the article is documented as a current event it should be expected that data will change. Active hurricanes get a {{infobox hurricane}} which lists the highest winds, but this doesn't have a "so far" on it. Only in areas of particular confusion (like tallying the death tolls from Katrina and Stan, where the hurricane is no longer a current event but the data is still likely to change) is a "so far" qualifier needed. Jdorje 20:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a {{SeasonActive}} template of some sort (See here for an example? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However it should be called {{infobox hurricane season active}}. And it should have a picture somehow...I changed {{infobox hurricane season}} and {{infobox hurricane season piconly}} to automatically include the track map picture (to make it easy to add these to all 100+ atlantic seasons, which I did)...but for the active season a track map is generally not available, it seems. Jdorje 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also the 5seasons might not want to list future seasons but instead the previous 4 ones. Jdorje 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The way to allow inclusion of an image is just to add {{{image name}}} and {{{image caption}}} back to the infobox. The question is what makes a good image - are there guidelines we can set here? Should it be a picture of the latest active storm? Or of the most intense or worst storm of the season? Or (best of all) is there some way we can get a season track map for active seasons? Jdorje 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

{{infobox hurricane season active}} has been created, although any other comments are appreciated. Should we also put this into the article, or stick with the current one first? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we should use it. Jdorje 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You can actually write into the code for the template to only show an image if their is a value for it, otherwise it will get hidden. See Template:Infobox_river fow what I mean and the specific code needed to make it happen. --Holderca1 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Track maps get published by the NHC at the end of the season. You could look at the UniSys page, which has an uptodate track map. It's rather crowded... Tompw 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The strongest storm section should be sepperated into Pressure and Wind Speeds like the other seasons. Fableheroesguild 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should Tropical Storm Alpha redirect here? There were Subtropical Storms Alpha in 1972 and Alfa in 1973. A disambiguation page would look something like this:

The name Alpha has been used for two subtropical cyclones and one tropical storm in the Atlantic Ocean. It was used to name subtropical storms in 1972 and 1973, and is used to name the first storm in excess of the last name on the basin's list.

• 1972's Subtropical Storm Alpha
• 1973's Subtropical Storm Alfa

In the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the list was enhausted and Alpha was used to name the season's 22nd tropical storm:

• 2005's Tropical Storm Alpha

Should the East Pacific exhaust its list, the Greek Alphabet will be used to name storms in excess of 24. This has never happened. However, the 1983 and 1992 seasons exhausted the list. The 1985 would have exhausted its list, but instead Xina, York and Zelda were added during the season. As the season ended with Hurricane Xina, there would have been a Hurricane Alpha that year. Had there not been X, Y, and Z names in 1992, that season would have had a Tropical Storm Alpha.

PAGASA and the Southwest Indian Ocean also use annual lists to name tropical cyclones in their areas of responsibility. It is not known if the Greek Alphabet will be used should those lists be exhausted in a season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PAGASA has some additional names, but not Greek Alphabet. RSMC La Reunion has no policy on how to due with an exhasuted name list for Southwest Indian Ocean. Momoko 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the disambiguation. The 1972 and 1973 Alphas could be confused for a tropical storm. CrazyC83 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree on that change. It would at least ameliorate some of us who felt others forced the redirect without a consensus. Are you going to go ahead and do the page Michelle? What you've written above sounds fine.--Sturmde 15:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)\

I made a page. It has since been edited by others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-Analysis

Moved to /Speculation, where it belongs. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Picking up after ourselves

In the progression of each hurricane article, we upload many, many images which will probably never be reused on Wikipedia. For example, after the forecasts are discontinued, we typically have a forecast image page which has been updated many, many times, eating many megabytes of space on the servers. Should we be nice and pick up after ourselves? The currently recommended procedure which would apply in this case would be to list these images on IfD as orphans. Some images actually cause copyright problems when they are orphaned, because the fair use rational no longer apply. For example, Image:Wilma forecast track (Canada).png. The original uploaders cannot speedy them because they were not uploaded accidentally. --Mm35173 12:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I nominated image:AlphaStrikeProbabilities.GIF, image:Charley fri forecast track.png, image:Dennis 2005 Track.gif, image:Emily3daytrack.gif, image:Emily3daytrack2.gif, image:Katrina 3day.gif, image:Ophelia forecast.gif, image:Phillipe5daycone.gif, image:Rita 2005 five day track.gif, image:Katrina-neworleans-aug26track11pm.gif, image:Wilma 5-day forecast track.gif, image:Wilma forecast.gif for deletion. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

October storms

What is the record number of storms for October? If TD26 strengthens into Beta then it will make six storms for October. Would that be a record? It seems like it would be. Even odder though is that this would mean that October would have more storms than either of the other months...this season just keeps getting stranger and stranger. bob rulz 05:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember at the beginning of the month we were discussing the possibility of getting to Greek letters and the odds of storms in November and December. Well, I made the comment that we could be into Greek letters in October and people thought I was crazy for saying that. Well here we are. --Holderca1 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

On GameFAQs, a user on the Harry Potter board had posted details about HP6 a few days before, and he was driven out with calls of "Idiot" and "Liar". Strange enough, the details were true. Goes to show, doesn't it? Sceptre 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, what does this have to do with the hurricane season? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The circumstances are similar to one and the another Sceptre 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thrown off for a moment because Stan began forming well in september, but did not actually form until october. Jdorje 16:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• June - 2 (A-B)
• July - 5 (C-G)
• August - 5 (H-L)
• September - 5 (M-R)
• October - 6 (S-b)

Storm formation has been quite uniform throughout the season. It's kind of surprising, though, that October has been our most active month (even moreso if 91L.invest should get a name)... --tomf688^{talk} 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Six storms have formed this month and five each in July, August and September. Then there was the two in June. -- E. Brown

We wonder how many there will be in November, although anything more than 2 or 3 would be extremely busy. CrazyC83 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This season's gotta run outta gas eventually. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rankings, Records and Statistics

Hmmm is it just me, or is this article a veritable orgasm of rankings, records and statistics.... often repeated over and over... with very little actual content, with real meaning? Where is the information to *EXPLAIN* these statistics, rankings and records?

Which ones in particular would you like explained? Earliest formation of nth storm, most storms during a particular month, and most intense storm on record are fairly self explanatory. ACE is fairly well described on this page and is linked to its main page on the topic. Also, please sign your comments. --Holderca1 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article Requirements

Can someone please explain to me what would count as a separate article? Are the requirements different if the storm lands in America as opposed to a non-english country (seeing as this is en.wikipedia)? If so what are the different requirements for that? I make this point only because I take note that Opehlia did 2 ... 3 fatalities while both Jose and Alpha killed more than her. Why is it that despite the higher fatalities and the scarier possibilities (both landed in places that could see mudslides), Ophelia has an article all of her own and even some people saying she would have a better chance at being retired than Jose or Alpha? --SargeAbernathy 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind with José and Alpha that only one storm name has been retired without the storm reaching hurricane strength, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. It caused over 50 deaths in the Houston area. Although I am sure, Jeanne would have joined Allison had it not reach hurricane strenght due to what it did as a tropical storm. I also highly doubt Ophelia will be retired and am not so sure that it merits its own article. But, these are things we can take care of in the off-season (if there is one) and we have more time for cleanup. --Holderca1 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The only way Ophelia will be retired as a name in 2006 is as part of a seven-pack. Considering that the greatest number of names retired in one year is four and we will most likely have Katrina, Rita, Dennis, Stan, and Wilma be retired (and Emily is much more "worthy" of retirement than Ophelia), I seriously doubt that it will happen... particularly considering that Ophelia never had landfall as a hurricane. B.Wind 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My only criteria is article length. If the "summary" text for a hurricane in the main article becomes too long, it should be moved into a separate article. If a separate storm article exists but has the exact same text as the main article, it should be merged back into the main article. There are a few border cases (like Alpha currently) where I'd say the summary text is about 1 paragraph too long for the main article, and it's hard to judge whether a separate article is justified. For active storms it is better not to have duplicate copies of the updates since then they'll end up out of date - for Wilma this was solved by just adding a disclaimer to the main page that said only the storm page had updates; for other storms it's been a problem since people make articles for just about every new storm and these quickly become out of date. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think there is value in writing an article that is only useful as a piece of current news (as some anonymous user or other has tried to do for just about every storm this season). This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Consider all the articles in Category:Hurricane Katrina; most of these were written in the current tense and are badly out of date or obsolete. Maybe someone should go through and update them but many are of little encyclopedic value. If a new article were created about each new storm this is the chaos we'd end up with. We should strive for quality, not quantity. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

People have complained about how US-centric the articles are. The above criteria are only US-centric because US citizens have more to write about hurricanes that affect the US. In a supposedly global encyclopedia this is a problem, but I don't see what we can do about it. The people who are complaining that Alpha is more "deserving" of an article than Ophelia (which is probably true) are obviously also US citizens because they, too, have nothing to write about Alpha. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I had thought of that point. This is an en.wikipedia site, not spanish. The storms Jose and Alpha did not effect English users, so interest in creating an article for them is not as strong as it was for Ophelia which struck an english nation, and Emily which struck a tourist destination with english speakers and was large enough to distrupt a lot of people. I suppose Jose and Alpha would be good articles to write about in the spanish wikipedia site. --SargeAbernathy 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, that's about as anti-NPOV as one can get. Linguistic chauvinism? So, what, should we take out all articles on the Koran because it is only authentic in Arabic? Or articles on the Louvre because only French speakers would care? Just in case you're not awares, Jamaica, Belize, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and....so on... there are many English-speaking nations scattered throughout the Caribbean. Wikipedia is for people of all nations; other language editions aren't supposed to be totally different Wikis... In any event, going by your rationale, the article information on Martian dust devils should be thrown out, because only Martian users would have interest in such an article! --Sturmde 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for the Ophelia article: the section got too long on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page. Due to the Internet availability and the high presence of local media information in that region, the information was enough to move it off. Same with Alex (2004). That didn't happen with Alpha or Jose (or Arlene or Cindy, for that matter). Note that some other past storms that don't have articles likely would have them if they formed today with all the information available. CrazyC83 15:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Some other storms not retired from 1993-2000 that possibly or likely would have had their own articles if they formed today based on current information available (*indicates article later made):

• 1993 - Bret, Emily, Gert
• 1994 - Alberto*, Gordon*
• 1995 - Erin
• 1996 - Bertha*, Edouard
• 1997 - (none)
• 1998 - Bonnie
• 1999 - Bret, Dennis, Irene
• 2000 - Alberto*

There are none since 2001 that were in that position.

CrazyC83 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

On why Alpha deserves its own separate article:

• 1. The death toll: Alpha killed 26 people total.
• 2. Tropical Storm articles are nothing new, as you can see here:

Tropical Storm Alberto (1994)

Tropical Storm Allison

Tropical Storm Odette (2003)

• 3. Some people are claiming that the article was created only because it was a Greek letter, no that was not the reason. And I was one of the people who said no to an Alpha article at first, but after seeing the death toll, I couldn't see why you couldn't have a separate article.

--Revolución (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case, then by all means add to the article. The current three-and-a-half paragraphs that it has is not enough to justify a separate article, but I'm sure if you do some research you can find some more. In particular some pictures would be nice. As I said before, length is my criteria not notability: the current article is the exact same length as its "summary" in the main article. Jdorje 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The only factor should be length. It's not about being US-centric, it's simply the fact that there are only a very small amount of people who hold a personal interest in Beta, for example, that contribute to this Wikipedia. It's up to them to write the article, or for someone to take a vested interest in seeking out the scarce news information that comes out of Central America following tropical storms. --tomf688^{talk} 20:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

About those tropical storms, in the case of Odette, it was originally placed at the main article (since it was the first use of Odette) but later moved once confirmed it was not retired (although there wasn't much chance of it). Same will happen with Ophelia next spring - if not retired, it will be moved to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) (currently a redirect), as will Vince to Hurricane Vince (2005), with both main articles redirecting to the date-modified pages - unless there are dissenting voices here. In the case of Alpha, it was necessary due to the disambiguation page. CrazyC83 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What follows Epsilon?

Or alternatively which Greek alphabet? If we're talking numbering storms after the moment we ran out, should it be Digamma? Or is it (boringly) Zeta? 82.36.26.229 21:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Digamma is an obsolete letter. It is no longer used. So if we get a storm after Epsilon (God forbid), it would be named 'Zeta'. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

One should follow the flush-right Greek letter chart, and not the full linguistic chart in the Greek alphabet article. That means digamma, vau, stigma; san; qoppa; sampi; and apostrophe wouldn't be used. I believe the National Hurricane Center consensus is that if it ever comes to What follows Omega?, storms will simply retain their tropical depression number. Frankly, if we ever get to a TD47+N (where N is the number of TD's not turning into tropical storms), we will have plenty of other climatological worries on our hands. But Tropical Storm Forty-Seven+N after Tropical Storm Omega seems rational. Then again, numbering them Roman style like Super Bowls or Jovian satellites might have merit. Tropical Storm LXIX anyone? --Sturmde 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If we start getting into Greek letters frequently, what they should consider is a rolling list that doesn't follow years at all...for example, assuming the list started with the 2005 season list, Alpha ---> Alberto, Beta ---> Beryl, Gamma (if formed) ---> Chris, etc.. The first storm of the following season (2006 in this case) would pick up where the last storm of the previous year ended, regardless of position on the alphabet. CrazyC83 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's hope we won't have to do that. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There should be a back up list with names of ambiguous gender; Avery, Brook, Casey, Devon, Everette, Farley, Gerry, Hayden, Indigo, Jamie, Kelly, Leigh, Marty, Nickie, Ollie, Pat, Robin, Shayne, Taylor, Vic, Willie. This way we can keep the human names, but not have to worry about the female/male problem at the end of the list. Hurricanehink 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The above is prudent since it won't give the NHC or whoever moniters hurricanes the trouble of retiring and replacing a greek letter. What happens if a greek letter is retired anyway? Px010

Poll

Can we take a poll on how we can the alignment of the pictures to be so we can get it over with. Please state if you like then on the:

Left:

Right:

1. tdwuhs
2. Awolf002 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Holderca1 15:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternating Left and Right:

1. Hurricanehink
2. Jdorje
3. CrazyC83
4. Patteroast
5. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
6. TimL
7. AySz88^-^
8. EMS
9. RattleMan
10. PK9 Not that my vote counts much I haven't actually contributed to the article.
11. Revolución (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
12. --WolFox 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
13. B.Wind 10:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes no difference:

1. NSLE
2. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• It is better alternating because if there are too many pictures they will otherwise run over each other. See the current 1870-1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons for an example of where alternating is *needed*. Jdorje 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't get it.. why is it that when i come up with the idea, almost nobody cared, but now, it becomes an issue? -Tcwd (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Because he was constantly changing it and being reverted every single time. I guess he wants "consensus". -- RattleMan 16:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• If the picture takes up more space than the text, why should there be a picture at all? I much more prefer to able to read the text easily! Awolf002 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Is it really that big of a deal? I prefer them on the right myself because having some on the left screws up the main article links but does it really matter? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Vince Picture (cont)

As talked about at Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/October#Hurricane_Vince, we might want to put a better picture on the page.... The current one is low-contrast and a little blurry. However, as I don't know how to work with images well, I'll defer to the rest of you to decide which image to use and how to put it in the article. AySz88^-^ 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)--WolFox 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that was the best image we could find, since NASA didn't take a real shot of Vince (like they did with other storms) -Tcwd (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe [4], the picture referenced in the previous discussion? AySz88^-^ 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The one linked above is an excellent replacement, IMO. --tomf688^{talk} 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Finally someone who listens! I said that exact same thing three or four weeks ago! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Who put up the one that's there now? It's horrible! Should we replace it with AySz88's pic? --WolFox 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone owns that image but I don't know who. Plus Vince imaged are rare. Ppl hated the old one so I added a better one. Good kitty 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about opening sentence

Apologies for making an edit without discussing it first, and I admit I may be alone in thinking this, but nonetheless I am somewhat offended by this article's opening line, "Early indications were for a very active season, and these expectations have been borne out." Obviously, early in the season, such cautious wording was commendable, but now that this season has officially broken nearly every Atlantic record, caused a hundred billion dollars in damages, and killed nearly three thousand people, it comes across as a poor attempt at ironic understatement. Serendipodous 13:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I had to revert your edits. I know your intentions are in the right place, but some of that was not the "standard" of the Atlantic hurricane season articles. The first two sentences in these articles, 99% of the time, is always, for example, "The 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. It officially started June 1, 2002, and lasted until November 30, 2002." I feel that the "Early inditcations..." sentence serves as a sort of "intro" to the displaying of the records from this season. I'm sure that, when this season is over, the truely destructive and heartwrenching aspect of this season will be found in those paragraphs. -- RattleMan 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rules for new tropical cyclone articles

I think we should have a rule (or more) for new tropical cyclone articles. Maybe something along the lines of "Only if the hurricane reaches Category 3+ and makes landfall" or "Only if the tropical cyclone's death toll exceeds x". I think this would stop the constant arguing on wether to keep a page or not (such as Tropical Storm Alpha). Do you think this is a good idea? -Tcwd (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the existing consensus is based on length - if the section grows too large and there is enough information to create a new article, then create it. I don't see any reason to change that, except to define what is "too large". AySz88^-^ 14:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are really two rules for gaining its own article:

• If the storm does so much damage and destruction (or is expected to) and the name is likely to be retired, the storm automatically gets the main article, and if the main article currently exists on a disambiguation page, it changes to Hurricane xxx (disambiguation)
• If the section in the season page is too long and contains too much information (particularly in the introduction and storm impact), then the storm can get its own article on a vote by the members. It will get the main article if it does not exist elsewhere (or at least a main article redirect), otherwise, it will get the year modifier. CrazyC83 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with these rules. --Patteroast 08:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

separate

Why isn't there a separate artical on Hurricane Beta?--Akako|☎ 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not important enough to warrant an article yet. -- RattleMan 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It will likely come, it just needs to strengthen some more (for us to be almost certain that it will be destructive) or make landfall. CrazyC83 15:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely. I have a bad feeling about this. In response to the post below, it's when it makes the big landfall (not over small islands) and causes lots of damage. -- RattleMan 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It has made landfall now, and doesn't it warrent the creation of an artical due to the fact that it is the first time that a hurricane has been named Beta, let alone Alfa? I could be wrong, but as the hurricane has made landfall (even if on a tiny island, Providencia, according to CNN.com) shouldn't it have a separate artical?--Akako|☎ 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Beta only has three small paragraphs written on it, hardly enough material to merit its own article.--Holderca1 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it's the first storm named Beta is not a reason to create its own article. Personally, I don't even think we should have articles on Ophelia or Vince, but there's nothing we can really do about it at the moment. bob rulz 19:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if Vince gets one than Beta should.

Beta probably will get an article - possibly later tonight - but I'm waiting for it to strengthen some more. At least wait for it to get up to Category 2 or a Category 3 landfall forecast. I'd say by the 11:00 pm advisory, the time will come. (Although if someone jumps the gun - not recommending it - I won't redirect it back, I'll build it up) Also, neither the Ophelia nor the Vince articles were made with the storm yet to have effects on land... CrazyC83 21:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms only get articles if they have enough content to warrant having one; the "if Vince gets one, Beta gets one" argument above isn't going to work. If there is significantly more content added about Beta, then and only then should it be moved to its own article. --tomf688^{talk} 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against an article for Beta. It isn't notable. It hasn't done much damage. Nobody's died yet. Ophelia was borderline. Vince didn't deserve an article any more that Odette (2003) did. I disagreed with the creation of a Hurricane Alex article for last year's Alex storm. No damage or notability, no article. That's the way I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The storm is about 18-24 hours or less from landfall, and strengthening. I think the time has definitely come. I think the big story from Beta will be the loss of life, unfortunately :'( CrazyC83 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree with CrazyC83. Beta is going into Nicaragua. Lots of rain there = Mitch, unfortunately. I think it's better to keep up with the updates on a separate article. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus people! Let's have a positive outlook on things! (Although reverse psychology is sometimes a useful tool). It could end up like Hurricane Greta in 1978: Stronger than Fifi (1974) with a similar track but minus the death and destruction wrought by Fifi. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

8 major hurricanes?

From [5] (the 4AM forecast discussion):

BETA IS THE EIGHTH MAJOR HURRICANE OF THE 2005 ATLANTIC SEASON

So what gives? Is forecaster KNABB just completely wrong, or have we lost one of the major hurricanes somewhere? Jdorje 10:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, lets see, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, Rita, Wilma, and Beta, yep, I only count seven, I think with all the madness, they miscounted. --Holderca1 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Button Bar

a quick idea, i think there should be a template on every hurricane page (katrina, rita, wilma etc) for quick access. The template should have all the major hurricanes of the season on the bottom, with a link to their page. Then, of course, there is a page to the main page. It'll make it a lot easier to naviagate around the hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.91.79 (talk • contribs)

How about a button bar? --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 13:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Buttons

It would really only work if we made articles for EVERY storm, which would be a time-consuming task plus it would lead to significant duplication. CrazyC83 15:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Look again at what he did.... Most of them link to the appropriate section on the 2005 article; only those with their own articles have links to that article. AySz88^-^ 15:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the button bar is really cool. It could go at the top and bottom of the main hurricane season page, and on the page of each storm that has its own article. --TimL 15:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Those definately need to be color-, bold-, and/or italics-coded in some way. Something like color for intensity and bold for retirement, perhaps. AySz88^-^ 15:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be really cool if they were color coded the same way the info boxes are color coded, or if thats too complicated, maybe just color coded to delineate T.S., Hurricane, Major Hurricane. Or simply land falling vs non land falling. (just throwing some ideas out there). --TimL 15:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I color coded it for storm categories to see how it looks. --Holderca1 17:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I would suggest top and bottom of storms section and bottom of the season page and on the pages where storms have own articles. Underline for landfalling and bold for retired or is that going too far? crandles 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall I templateize it now or should I make the button bar specific for each article? Should it be in all Katrina articles? Should It be in the 2005 Hurricane Season Category? --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 20:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) --I will italicize if active, how about that. its already templatize by {{Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Buttons}} -- see my user page.

Why would you need a template specific for each article? --Holderca1 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Already Inserted in every article. Jumps up and down like a hyperactive bunny. I hope there are know display issues. It is at the bottom of the articles, It seemed too gaudy for the top. It is at the top of 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season and the bottom. You can see where it links to here [6].

Also, should it be in the disambiguation pages for each storm name? CrazyC83 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well since it isn't in every Katrina, Wilma, or Rita article, I think its overkill to put it on each disambiguation page (though I could go into hyperactive bunny mode again.) I hope that does not become a catchphrase. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 21:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, does anyone here use a monitor resolution of 800x600? I would think that if they did there would be a horizontal scrollbar because of the button bar (which, BTW, is a very good idea). -- RattleMan 21:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I (CrazyC83) just created this:

Testing now at 800X600. If we have two more storms the buttons are screwy, but currently just miss creating a scroll bar. If it reaches that point I suggest: --removing the depressions after two more storms --changing the button width after two more storms --lowering the text size after two more storms --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) See [here http://www.interminatus.com/800by600buttons.png] for an image of them at 800x600.

Would two rows work? The depressions should not be removed, and reducing the width or text size would make it harder to see. CrazyC83 21:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to do this now, because it would make it look bad, but the spacing between the buttons can be pushed down. I will do an invisible html note in the button bar to explain which variable should be changed in the event of more storms. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 21:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC) NEVERMIND -- fixed it but reducing spacing between buttons. Does not look too bad.

That works well. I created another one: Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season/Buttons CrazyC83 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just tried creating that. oooh Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. Good thing I checked here. Well...back to work at doing non-wiki work. Yes, that does exist. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters to you graphical-browser types,but as a Lynx user I am annoyed by the button bar's taking up two and a half screens that need to be paged through.(It may be rendered horizontally elsewhere but it comes across as double-spaced diagonals in Lynx).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you give me some sample text? It may be due to all the linebreaks in the physical code. Unfortunately, line breaks make the code readable. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

12.144.5.2, how does this look?

--Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That version is also diagonal,but doesn't have blank lines between each link;each link is on the next line and one space over from the previous one.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to put the 2003 button bar on the 2003 relevant pages, and I have already put the 2004 button bar on 2004 relevant pages. --CFIF 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC) I just tried bolding the retired storms on the 2004 bar: Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season/Buttons What do you think? PenguinCDF 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Could the colours be a bit more subtle please? The pure colours are bugging me, it would be nice if they were all a shade darker or something. (e.g. instead of red, you have #cc3333 or something) Jevon 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC) like this? --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't see the need for this, one could simply look at what is called "contents" at the beginning and click on which storm they want to read. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I myself have found paging to the table of contents (or even the infobox and then to the main 2005 link, or to the category link) annoying enough for each hurricane season. That is why I made the original bar. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

On the red buttons, it is difficult for me to see the text if the page is marked as visited. Ajm81 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I like these button bars. When will the ones before 2003 (like 1950-2002) be created? Dralwik 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages :-) --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC) A list of them all {{User:Ctrl_build/sandbox}} --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this panel is any better than using Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season. But if you are to create it, you should use the templates for the storm colors - see {{storm colour cat5}}. And of course the template needs to be on a separate page (if it's on a talk page then it doesn't have a talk page). Jdorje 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

By some strange glitch in the wikipedia software

does not create a template. Look at the history for 2004 and 2005's seasons to see this glitch in action. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF

It's not a glitch, MediaWiki wont transclude things that are outside the Template: namespace. I personally don't see much benefit in the button bar, but I can move them across namespaces if everyone agrees. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see whether a link is bolded or not. Also - could a legend be handy? S onson 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be {{2005 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}}, surely? Jdorje 02:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since there's no need for it to be a subpage. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for the movement. Signing off for the week. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Testing it out on a few pages is good, but before trying to put it onto all seasons PLEASE think through the design fully. First of all, use templates for the colors. Secondly, making each button bar be 50+ lines long will make it really hard to make any future changes (changes which will be needed because the button must point to the appropriate location which may change if a new article is created). I suggest you use higher-level templates: {{Hurricane season bar start}}, {{Hurricane season bar button}}, and {{Hurricane season bar end}} (each taking a few arguments as needed). Jdorje 02:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ident = reset) I agree with that. Maybe you would like to make a test for this year's season, and then we modify it? Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that they should not be at the top of the pages but resricted to the bottom. That's just my personal opinion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate

The buttonbar at the top of the season page is hideous. There is a table of contents. There are DOZENS of links to the major storms in the article. People don't need their hands held THAT much. Furthermore, I'm starting to resent the attitudes of some editors here. Someone put it in saying, quote, "(It has become the standard that due to the length of the hurricane season articles, you put it in twice, storm articles only have it once at the bottom. It is for convienence's sake.)" I'm sorry, I wasn't aware standards were drafted, argued, and instituted in the space of 12 hours. If I missed that memo, please enlighten me. Back to my main point: It's hideous, and we don't need YET ANOTHER link to the 23 storms in this article. It MIGHT be useful - I won't say yes or no yet - on the storm articles, but it's horrible here. How many times do you have to give people links to the storms? Furthermore, it puts too much reliance on the designations. Its only use that I can see is as a graphical indicator of the season's strength - seeing the intensities in order and such. I don't see myself or anyone else ever using this thing for navigation - especially on the season page, where we already have a table of contents! Why, on Hurricane Dennis, would I think, "Hm, let's learn about Tammy" and click T, which takes me, well, here. Then I go back? To learn about another storm? Why not just stay where I am? Again - Do we really think our readers are so stupid we have to give them eighteen different and sometimes horribly formatted opportunities to learn about a vaguely relevant storm? If they want to find out what other storms were notable in a season, and they're on the Dennis page, they can bloody go to the season page, giving them a bar with a link to "K" does them nothing. Was K notable? Should they be expected to click through these to find useful articles? --Golbez 08:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The template {{2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons}} has been completed. It uses all of the higher level templates noted.

I'm not a particular fan of the button bar, but PLEASE remove it from the top of the season page. It's really ugly to see that as the first thing, especially as I can't recall another Wikipedia page that has a menu bar at the top like that. TOC exists for a reason. --Goobergunch|? 16:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the button bar is ugly as sin (no offense intended, just my opinion). It is completely redundant to the table of contents. The article is very easy to navigate without it. There is only one section between the storms and the TOC, anyway. It makes the page less accessible for people using screen readers and other assistive technologies. On a related note, the infobox at the top right and the season summary are basically redundant. There is too much junk here; we need to make the article more efficient and get it to a more desirable length. Stuff like "early expectations were blah blah, and these have been born out..." just needs to go. Let the facts speak for themselves. All of the blurbage about records puts the season in perspective already. There is just too much here. --Mm35173 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, people have basically nothing worthwhile to contribute of substance to the article, so they have to conjure up useless ideas like this. --Revolución (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The offseason (if there is one) should give us time to clean things up a bit. --Holderca1 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

People who help improve the usability or readability of the encyclopedia are just as valuable as those who put information onto the page. Custom easily-readable tables of articles are very helpful - for example, {{viacom}}. I really dislike the above (Revolucion's) ad hominem attack. Someone going back to this group of articles would probably find the bar very helpful. (I'm assuming that stuff will be added (bold/italics) denoting the retired or landfalling status of each hurricane.)

That wasn't ad hominem. I said absolutely nothing about the editors who contributed any of the content I'm criticising. --Mm35173 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not you, Revolucion's post. AySz88^-^ 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To those who want say the bar is redundant with the Table of Contents: is it possible to exclude or collapse a portion of the ToC? Honestly, I'd much rather see the bar than that bland uninformative list of names in the ToC. Maybe completely get rid of the automatic ToC.

-- AySz88^-^ 21:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Except storms aren't the only thing in the table of contents. --Golbez 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant replace it with a manual version; it's doubtful that the table of contents will change enough to be any hassle after the end of the season.

Maybe it would be better if the red and aqua were toned down a bit? The red makes the links harder to red, and the aqua is too bright for denoting a minor depression. AySz88^-^ 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My complaint is the concept, not the execution. --Golbez 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

<--

I do not understand your adversity to the concept; the advantage of the bar seems extremely obvious to me. It's undeniably superior to the ToC, since someone looking for a storm can easily find it by first letter, rather than the A, B, C, etc. jumping around horizontally when one is forced to scroll down the ToC. If one actually is browsing through all tropical storms or all hurricanes, the colors still provide a faster guide and more information than the text link "Hurricane xyz". The appropriate links even take you directly to the main articles of storms! If one is on a specific storm's article and browsing through all the major/landfalling/retired hurricanes, a flick of the mouse wheel and a single click gets you to the next desired storm. It serves as an entire season's summary at-a-glance, allowing people to see every storm of a season through colors and formatting. I doubt I can even think of all the advantages of the bar on my own. What the heck is wrong with the concept? AySz88^-^ 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It is apparently not undeniably superior, since I deny it. I've already explained what's wrong with the concept. Also, the colors are 100% irrelevant without a colorkey, which would just add more space to it. Do you expect people to go to Hurricane Katrina, see the bar, and expect to know what it means at all? --Golbez 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC) And furthermore, what use does it have here, which already, again, has dozens of links to the storms, and a table of contents, and a list of names? All this ads to that is unkeyed color coding, which is obsessing too much over what category a storm is. --Golbez 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC) My main complaint is using it on the season page. You're just adding more links to an already overlinked article. It might - in a different form - be useful on the storm pages, though I doubt it, since over half of the links link here, and again, the symbols and colors are obscure to the point of being confusing. But even if it's just in the storm article, I think it's obsessing too much about connectin the storms of the season. I'm highly unlikely to do such horizontal research, when the season article supplies all that information easily. --Golbez 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the buttonbar is it's too obscure. Unless you already know what every symbol means, it is just a collection of letters and colors. Jdorje 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why people are adverse to it. It just was removed with the idea of hitting home. On non-ie browsers, browser navagation is more inclined to opening multiple tabs sequentially, than linear navigation. I have attempted to make look as good as possible, but since I cannot insert style sheets, the extra code to make rounded corners and other features would increase the bar code size four fold (I tested this.) I made a button bar specifically because navigating this page was so insanely hard. Each time I wanted to access a different hurricane, I would have to navigate to the infobox for a specific hurricane, click the 2005 season, navigate down, and check the hurricane. This was especially true during september and august when the articles for multiple storms were changing quickly. Unlike other subjects, like video game consel generations, there is was no way of easily navigating between consequitive entries. All I wanted was to be able to check Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina as quickly as I could check Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast. Anyway, all of this and the time this has taken up has lead me to want to leave wikipedia for an extended period. I will likely either not respond or respond sparesly. I hope this issue calms down, or if not this, at least this hurricane season. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 02:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea. It is a really efficient way of moving through the article. The only confusing part is the greek letters, I'd assume the general population isn't framiliar with the greek alphabet. I'm just not sure how to clarify it though. -- Anon user

Golbez, if I haven't understood your complaint, "I've already explained" does not allow me to understand it any more than I had understood it the first time around. You said it was too repetitive with the ToC; I suggested removing the ToC instead of removing the bar. You didn't see how it would be helpful for navigation, and I explained how. The stuff about it being an eyesore is a different issue entirely from the merits of its existance. I honestly do not see any concerns in your post that I have not addressed. The "too much emphasis on category" thing is rather irrelevant - it is the most convenient way of summarizing the strength of the storm - and I've already suggested toning down the contrast a bit. The color key is in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale template already - in this article (and, I believe, not in any single storm's article - one reason why a copy of the bar was placed in this article, I think).

(edit conflict) Okay, hold on, what other lists of links are comparable? I have already mentioned that this is probably something of a ToC-replacement, and there doesn't seem to be any other table of contents (the name list might be, partially, but it doesn't jump to the appropriate section in the article for storms without their own article). Considering that so much work has already been done, is there any reason why it should be deleted instead of refined?

First of all, just because work has been done does not grant one the right to implant his work into an article. Second of all, we have the ToC. We have the list of names at the bottom whic have links to the storms with articles. We have many instances of storms being linked, in the summary, in the records, etc. Why do we need yet another that doesn't really help? A graphical timeline of the season might be useful, but I don't think this is it. --Golbez 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Jdorje: the color-coding key is already built into the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale table template, which can be seen to the right of the ToC. The symbols are rather self-explanatory for the English letters and numbers. If you mean the Greek letters, that's kinda a one-off thing for this season (hopefully!). As for the meaning of bold/italics, that might be a real problem, although something simple like (Retired, Landfalling) (Retired, Landfalling) might be acceptable.

AySz88^-^ 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The bold/italics have meaning? I didn't even notice. Anyway, adding extra information (colors/bold/italics) that new readers won't understand is okay. What's not good is concealing information (actual storm names) that users need to see. The bar is obscure because a new reader has no way to figure out what it even means. I'm not against the idea of having a navigation tool for storms and the storm article...but I think letters are not sufficient identifiers for storms. Jdorje 03:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

<-- RESTORING DELETED COMMENT If you hover over the color part now, you get more information about each stom, especially for the 22nd and 23rd, and this can be expanded. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Leave it in at the bottom at least. There is NO ToC at the bottom of the page. It's much easier to click on the bar than to have to scroll up to the top of the page.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Otherwise we'll just see both sides continue to add and remove it until we all get sick of contributing....

This looks better... I'm not as opposed to it just being at the bottom; the bottom of the page is not as cluttered as the top. Could you shrink it so that it doesn't cross the whole page? --Mm35173 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to add on some of my problems with the bar. The hover over the letter to see which storm it is is nice, but it doesn't work for all of the storms. Fix it so that when you hover over "L", it says Tropical Storm Lee rather than 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, same with Alpha so it says Tropical Storm Alpha rather than Tropical Storm Alpha (2005). Next thing, get rid of the colors, no one knows what the colors mean other than the regular contributors to this article. Also, I just don't think it is necessary on the main page at all, the storms are already linked to their own articles at least four times already. --Holderca1 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the button bar, if nothing else it's colorful. It should be added to the Pacific hurricane season pages too. I'd code it but I'm on the road and in the air this week and it's late here in the US Midwest. To bad we can't do something like this for the Pacific typhoon page where the storms don't follow the alphabet. --SkyWayMan 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Forecast Timing

Midway through, the 7AM advisory says:

AT 8 AM EDT...1200Z...THE CENTER OF HURRICANE BETA WAS LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 12.9 NORTH... LONGITUDE 83.5 WEST OR ABOUT 145 MILES... 235 KM... SOUTH OF CABO GRACIAS A DIOS ON THE NICARAGUA/HONDURAS BORDER. THIS POSITION IS WITHIN A FEW MILES OF THE COAST OF NICARAGUA NEAR LA BARRA.

At the end it says:

REPEATING THE 7 AM EST POSITION...12.9 N... 83.5 W. MOVEMENT TOWARD...SOUTHWEST NEAR 8 MPH. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...110 MPH. MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE... 965 MB.

The correct time is 7AM EST, a US forecaster giving 8AM EDT forgot to turn his clock back this morning!

Cmadler 12:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Number of Category 3+ hurricanes

There is an inconcistency in this article: the text claims that there have been eight category three or higher hurricanes this season, while the sidebar claims there have been only seven. I was under the impression that Beta marked the seventh 3+ hurricane of the season. Which is right?Serendipodous 18:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Asked and answered in the "8 major hurricanes?" section slightly above this one.Seven is correct.--Louis E/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone screwed up!--Halomania 01:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Px010

Greek characters

Should we put in the Greek characters (α β) next to the Greek names? --WolFox 05:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not in the official advisories, nor names. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but we use them in the button bar.--WolFox 05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but "A" and "B" are already used ;) -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article Poll

In light of the recent discussions and the large amount of time deliberating over whether certain articles are warranted or not, I believe that we need to come up with some form of standard for when a storm warrants a seperate article or not. The old way of when the section in the main article has too much info in it has several problems with it. First it will bias those storms affecting the U.S. due to the larger amount of media attention the U.S. media give to U.S. storms. The second being the large amount of gray area and the ensuing discussions on those articles. So I am creating this poll to see what everyone's opinion is and hopefully we can come to some type of concensus. Just vote under whichever section you feel it should be. --Holderca1 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All landfalling storms get their own article, fishspinners do not:

All landfalling hurricanes get their own article, all others do not:

All landfalling hurricanes and only deadly tropical storms get their own article, all others do not:

• Titoxd^(?!?) 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 07:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• --CFIF 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• --Revolución (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All storms causing fatalites get their own article, all others do not:

Only storms whose names are retired get their own article, all others do not:

• Hurricanehink 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - I support this with a twist. If storms are notable in some other way than retirement, we can discuss it if it should have an article (Ginger, Gordon, Alice). There are too many hurricane articles as it is, and we should start merging them (Alex from 2004, Ethel from 1960, etc.)

Keep it the way it has been done in the past:

• Patteroast 08:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Golbez 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - RULECRUFT. We can use INDEPENDENT THOUGHT to figure out when an article is needed, and with only the recent exceptions of Ophelia and Alpha, this has borne out well. We never had this problem in 2004.

Rulecruft? This rule has existed before I started contributing here, so please don't imply that I am trying to create one. I am simply just trying to amend it. Telling people that they cannot create a seperate article because it has not outgrown it's section on the season page is a rule whether you like it or not. --Holderca1 12:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand me. Trying to make rules about this is rulecruft. The only rule should be to use common sense. --Golbez from work

Well it wasn't my intent to make a rule about it, just better guidelines. Some people don't have common sense. ;-) --Holderca1 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is utterly exasperating. Use common sense. Not everything deserves an article. Mike H (Talking is hot) 09:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If only it were as cut and dry as the Hurricane Katrinas and Tropical Storm Lees this wouldn't have been discussed. See Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)--Holderca1 12:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• B.Wind 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - Just as long as those with Greek alphabet names are held to the same standard as the ones on the name list. Frankly, I'd rather not have ANY separate article for any active hurricane, and location of landfall should not factor into the determination of whether a specific hurricane deserves its own main article.
• crandles 13:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• *sigh* Agree with Golbez. --Goobergunch|? 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• CrazyC83 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - depending on length of the article, unless the name appears headed for retirement. Several other past storms that were less notable have articles too (Alex last season, 1994 and 2000 Albertos, Bertha in 1996, Odette in 2003).
• Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

What's a deadly storm? One that kills *anyone*? Well over half of the storms cause at least one death I believe. And what about indirect deaths? In my opinion we need to have exact criteria: either (1) only retired names or (2) all storms. The latter isn't as bad as it sounds since if *all* storms had separate articles (Hurricane Maria (2005)) we could trim the main article way down...and we could add track maps and other pictures for each storm that wouldn't fit in the main article. Jdorje 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

From Maria onward (except for Alpha and Tammy(?)), date modifiers are unnecessary for the storms that developed as they were used for the first time anyway. CrazyC83 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the main article being trimmed down. I think it should be no more than a paragraph maybe two giving a bried account of the storm. The section on Katrina is way too long considering all the different Katrina artciles that are out there. --Holderca1 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Last year, articles were made for Charley, Frances, Jeanne, and Ivan - the ones that got retired, and obviously the most notable of the season. This year we have more iffy ones - Ophelia and Alpha, to be specific. Frankly, Ophelia needs to be killed, and Alpha, well, time will tell. But my general feeling is, only when the article outgrows the season page, or is very obviously going to be a major event, do we give it its own article. Ophelia fits neither criteria. --Golbez 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is how I have always felt, but the amount of time wasted discussing it on the Alpha page that could of been spent on researching and cleaning up articles is incredible. There is an article for Alex last year as well. I think the reason it didn't come up last year is that there were not nearly that many storms that made landfall. The storms last year that made landfall and do not have their own article are Bonnie, Gaston, Matthew. There were no Central American storms, and only one storm to affect Hispaniola (Jeanne). --Holderca1 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Alex! Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. Alex was notable for unique intensification, but honestly, that does not an article make. Perhaps it should be merged. --Golbez from work

Yep, Ophelia and Alpha definitely need to be weeded out. So does Vince, which is remarkable only in formation and landfall location. Beta's separate article is still premature. B.Wind 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the purpose of the poll, but this is instruction creep. I know that the editors here have longstanding ways of doing things, but remember, Wikipedia is a wiki, and is not a democracy. --Mm35173 14:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I say, stick to the current rules. Ophelia is 25k, Alpha is 23k (from a Google search). Vince wasn't an article I would have planned on, but support here and several recommendations made me do it, and I clearly modelled it like Hurricane Faith (which definitely deserves an article). While there won't be articles for every storm (or even every landfalling storm), moderate-impact storms should get articles once it becomes too long on the season page. This will become more common as information becomes readily available. Some recent examples of storms without articles that likely would have one if formed today: Erin (1995), Edouard (1996), Bonnie (1998), Bret (1999), Irene (1999). However, when making articles for moderate-impact storms, we can't break disambiguation pages, which retain the main article. Fish-spinners shouldn't get their own articles unless they are extremely unusual (i.e. record strength - beating Wilma, extreme long-lasting or in an unprecedented latitude) CrazyC83 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should stick to the way we have been doing it, we just need to be consistent. Why does Hurricane Alex (2004) have its own article, it only caused one fatality and less than $5 million in damage. There was nothing unusual about the storm. Not sure on the notability of it. What exactly is too long for the season page? Maybe that was the question that should have been asked. On the wiki is not a democracy thing, that was not the intent. Constant revert wars on every storm and discussions on whether a storm should have its own article that are longer than the article themselves seems like a waste of time to me. --Holderca1 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Category 5 fish-spinners

Just curious, since these are (usually) extremely rare storms (there have only been 28 storms that have reached that intensity), should a Category 5 fish-spinner have its own article in the future? (It has only happened three times and we have little information for any of the three past such storms) CrazyC83 16:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• No. I think the criteria should clearly be the impact, not the storm strength. Thus if a hurricane is no threat to land, I don't see why it should be created unless it breaks Wilma's record for hurricane strength. --Revolución (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably only if it becomes stronger than Wilma or is unusual in some respect. That would explain the reason we have articles on two EPac Cat. 5 fish spinners, John and Linda. Then again, most EPac storms are fish spinners. If we get another Faith that also happens to be a Cat 5, it might get an article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 17:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say no, but perhaps an article on all the Cat 5s, there are several that were fish spinners and do not have their own article. --Holderca1 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with the above statements. Just because a storm is a Category 5 fish spinner doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. That's just how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

template design

the template designs look pretty good! Well done! But, there is a problem. There are just letters there. People who look at the article will not know which hurricane is which. Sure, i can get it (well most of it anyway), but not everyone knows which numbers are names of hurricanes. So therefore an idea is to show the full names. ----

Which will just make it large and confer no further information. A link to the season page has been and continues to be sufficient. --Golbez 09:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, i understand that. I mean one like this. This is a template from the c64 (commodore 64) article. And in case you can't find it at first, it's at the bottom. And colour can be added later to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64 ----

Too-long storm sections (again)

I don't know how but Arlene and Cindy have grown to be too long. Probably Tammy too. Do we need separate articles for these storms? I condensed the sections for the storms that do have separate articles, but this now means some of the lesser storms have more info than the big ones. Jdorje 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Alpha needs to be shortened --Revolución (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• hmm, somebody shortened it right as I said that. --Revolución (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think the length of Arlene and Cindy is perfect. Nothing is left out, and it explains everything we need to know about these storms. If only all landfalling storms were was well fleshed out, and there's little fat in either that I can see. --Golbez 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Tammy's probably could be shotened a bit. All the sections with main articles need to be shortened considerably. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez's point of view

The main article is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This is the article from which all the others spring off of.

Now, sometimes, these storms are notable in themselves - Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma.

Sometimes, however, they are notable because of a quirk of history, that they were the first ever known to be something. Vince, Alpha.

And then we have the fishspinners, or the storms that caused minor damage. Arlene, Franklin, Harvey, to name a few.

Now, I don't think anyone disagrees with giving the inherently notable storms articles. They aren't children of the 2005 season article - they are articles in themselves, storms individually so notable that the season is almost irrelevant.

So then we have the remainder. There are two classes of storms here - the ones that warrant enough information on this article to get their own article, because it has outgrown this one, for formatting, readability, or comprehensiveness; and those which were so boring that they rightly consume no more than a handful of paragraphs.

So, now that I've established my premise, let's go over that list again: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma. Each one of these is not only inherently notable, but easily outgrew the article; the Katrina article and its children are longer than the season article.

So then we have the ones that don't instantly reckon an article. The first criteria to look for is: Does the available information we have outgrow this article? Looking at the article, I see:

• Arlene: Very full section, just below the threshhold for a full article. We would be blessed if every storm in the season article were presented in this fashion, for I like having a full section. It does not, however, warrant its own article.
• Bret: Slightly less full than Arlene, but similar.
• Cindy: Another very well-done section.
• Franklin: Short, but all we can give on a fishspinner.
• Gert: Again.
• Harvey: "
• Irene: Longer than the previous three, even though it's not an inherently more notable storm that I can see. But we simply have more info; it may use pruning later on.
• Ten: A short but sweet blurb that foreshadows Katrina.
• Jose: Franklin-length for a Cindy-caliber storm, but not bad. Not worthy of its own article; could be fleshed out more here.
• Lee: Fishspinner.
• Maria: Now here we have the first test of "Is it otherwise historically notable"? Because it nearly struck Iceland as a tropical cyclone, and its only recorded deaths were from Norway. We do have an article on Hurricane Faith which was similar. However, the length does not warrant its own article, and I don't find the post-tropical effects sufficiently historic. However, a case could be made a la Faith (a case could also be made to merge Faith into its season article)
• Nate: Nice section for a mostly fishspinning storm.
• Ophelia: Bloody hell. This is where it gets difficult. Is the storm inherently notable? In my opinion, not really. So it parked off the coast for a few days and washed away from sand. It happens. It caused anywhere between $50 and $800m damage - we'll have to wait for the Tropical Cyclone Report to be sure. So, in my opinion, it is not worthy of an article on notability alone. But then we have the second criteria - information. The Ophelia article has much too much information to fit into the season article. So, we are left with the question - do we prune the article and merge it back in, or do we keep it where it is, even though it is highly unlikely to be retired, and caused probably not too notable damage? This could use a discussion.
• Philippe: Fishspinner.
• Nineteen: A nice short blurb about a failed depression.
• Tammy: Back to Cindy/Arlene quality, needs a picture.
• Twenty-two: Again, nice.
• Vince: Another iffy case. In this case, it lacks information - the article could probably be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss of information. Vince was, however, notable for being the only recorded tropical cyclone to strike mainland Europe. So do we give it its own article based on that alone? Worth discussion.
• Alpha: Notable for several reasons - It caused a fair amount of death and damage, and oh yeah, it broke the record for number of storms. However, ponder this for a moment - Does that make the STORM notable? Or the SEASON? I would say the latter, thus removing that raison d'etre for the article. Lengthwise, the article just baaarely overdraws the limits of the season article; it could be folded back in with minimal or zero loss of information, and I support this. Remember, folks - Alpha was not notable for being the 22nd storm, it was the season that was notable for having 23 storms.
• Beta: Better case for notability than Alpha if we get any casualty reports in. It has more information than the Alpha article, but I still think it could be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss. However, this is less of a major situation, but in the future I would prefer keeping the information in the SEASON article until length/notability requires it. The recent articles - Tammy, Wilma, Alpha, Beta - are being made extremely early in their lives, with no reason.

That's just my take on how the season article and its various children are working out. In related news, the Monthly Summary comes out early tomorrow, and that will have updated damage, death, and intensity estimates for the October storms. Let's see if we can glean any information from it. --Golbez 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we have another record, longest post ever on a talk page. j/k, very well said. --Holderca1 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed, AGREED. Thank you for saying this. I think if we could make a full, interesting article on any storm, it's worthy of having one. That's easy to do for some storms, and others might not make it. If there's enough information available, I think the iffy cases of Ophelia and Vince should have articles. I'm going to reserve judgement on Alpha and Beta until damage and death tolls become more clear, but I'm leaning towards not supporting the Alpha article. --Patteroast 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My basic take on this is that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article is way too long. Our goal should be to make it into something that a regular person could read through from start to finish, using summaries where necessary to condense text that would otherwise be too long. A related problem is that the text is too "dense" in many places - people don't want to read the exact wind speed or pressure of every hurricane or the distance from some unknown island where it formed; if that's the kind of information we want to present we should do it via a picture of some kind rather than via text.

As storms go, I think each storm should have a two-paragraph summary - Katrina is a good example; as the the most notable storm it now has two long paragraphs for its summary (about 15 lines in total). However this is a problem because Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Irene and possibly others have summaries that are (by my standards) too long...and I don't want to condense them since without a "main article" for these storms that will mean some writing is lost.

So. I have no problem with adding more articles, *if* they have more info than the summary. If we make the summaries smaller, then we can have more short articles that expand on the summaries. The article doesn't have to be that lengthy so long as it is high-quality. There are also additional nice pieces of info we can put into articles (storm track pictures, infoboxes, damage pictures) that wouldn't all fit on the summaries (although having a storm track picture for each summary would probably be better than the text form of the storm history we have now).

My suggestion therefore is that rather than spend more time arguing about it and getting into edit wars, we spend some time simply improving the article (and its sub-articles, including the storm articles but also other sub-articles). During this time new storm articles may be created without a large hastle, with the understand that they'll be deleted later if they turn out not to be useful. The only restriction is that no writing should ever be lost (though it may be moved onto and off of the main article as needed). We set a fixed date - say November 30th, the end of the season - at which time we want to have the work complete. By then we want the main article to be high quality and something that a normal person would find interesting to read. At the end we meet back here and based on what we've learned we can come up with guidelines that can then be used for other (future and past) seasons.

Jdorje 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much specific stuff in the summaries; in particular, minimum pressure is useless. We have to remember that the Tropical Cyclone Reports will have many times more information than we want in the articles, so when those come out, we can shuffle some minor aspects off to it (like minor preparations, etc). Wikipedia is a reference work, not a comprehensive journal. --Golbez 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am an author and I'm going to look at this from an author's point of view. What we need to do for this article is to differentiate between interesting information and nessisary information. All trivial facts, as interesting as they are, need to be cut from the article. Records need to be kept to a two-sentence maximum. Maybe three as an absolute maximum for select cases (ex: Wilma's pressure fall). We seem to want to spend an entire paragraph talking about solitary and sometimes menial records. The introduction needs some considerable shortening. Much of what is said there is better off in the Season Summery section. That's the biggest problem I have with the article over everything else. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

All we know right now is that the big 6 (Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma) shouldn't be touched; they deserve significant mention for notability and their names are likely going to be retired - the first criteria is met there. They most definitely warrant separate article.

From there, we get to the next question mark: historically notable. The only one I can think of that meets that clearly standard is Vince (unlike Faith, Maria was long extratropical when it moved northward - which eliminates that argument). Alpha was a lot like Odette and has some merit for an article, on a mixture of impact and notability. I will admit I waffled on the Alpha article; I really see both arguments and don't have a real position on it. BTW the last Atlantic storm that had an article (or warranted one) for strictly historical purposes was Alberto in 2000 (Odette in 2003 was like Alpha).

Next up, you get to the length of the section on the page. That is where Ophelia was broken away. It was clearly too long (the Ophelia article is 25k) and the significant coastal damage (although numbers are highly variable - anywhere from $50M to $1.5B) make the storm somewhat notable, although it definitely would be a lot more notable in a less-busy season (it is in the shadows of many other storms).

I do not support separate articles on any other storms, though. CrazyC83 04:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the big 6. We already have main articles on them. We should really keep their entrys on the main page to a brief summery, like was done with Hurricane Gilbert and Hurricane Joan in 1988. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? It sounds to me like Golbez is saying that the "Big 6" are the ones that clearly wanton to keep seperated. Route56 04:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Beta?

Reports are coming in very slow for Beta, but this is the information I have gotten so far from news reports, in regards to human casualties (for more info on damage, check Hurricane_Beta#Impact regularly:

• At least 30 people are reported to have been injured during Hurricane Beta's wrath on the island of Providencia.
• 10 boaters are reported to be missing in Puerto Cabezas.

--Revolución (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

News reports now saying four missing and one injured in Nicaragua. --Revolución (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a new image of Hurricane Beta at NASA. Maybe the current one (which is B&W) can be replaced by this one that fits with all the other ones. I know someone likes to lighten all the borders, so I will leave this one to them. Good kitty 05:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Holderca1 19:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Radical Reorganization

Well, after all this stuff about trimming things down and getting rid of information and what storms should have their own article and such, I got an idea for a major reorganization of the format of these hurricane seasons. Remembering that Wikipedia is not paper, who really cares whether every storm gets an article, as long as a better, appropriate, from-scratch summary is left behind? Since we're living through these events and have all this information at our fingertips, there's no reason why we can't include all the stuff people might possibly want to reference in the future. There should be several levels of detail depending on what is desired - the season summary at the top of the season article, the storms' summaries in the context of the season article, the individual storm's summary, and the storm's article. There have also been complaints that the length of the article is too long. One might as well move everything to other articles, leaving only the most important bits. This also avoids loss of otherwise fine information. I propose the following:

The yyyy Oceanician hurricane season article has just bare bones:

• An introduction of only the most important few events, like currently.
• A table containing statistics, such as maximum strength, minimum pressure, number of deaths, maximum wind speed, duration, ACE, landfalls, etc. Symbolically, like an expanded version of the navigation bar.
• One column in the table with a couple-sentence to one-paragraph very condensed summary for each storm.
• All other information about the season beneath this table, or summaries with details in another article (i.e. [[Forecasts for the yyyy Oceanician hurricane season]], [[Records set by the yyyy Oceanician hurricane season]])

Every named storm of the season has its own article i.e. [[Storm xyz (yyyy)]] :

• A navigation bar, symbolically a mini version of the aforementioned statistics table (though in practice not much different than the current bar).
• An introduction of what we currently have as the "summaries" (more text than numbers, like Arlene)
• A main text detailing storm development, dates, times, pressures, winds, categories, deaths, etc. This can probably include more liberal use of numbers and dates and details, like the last few sentences of Irene.

Improvements/comments/lynchings? Feel free to copy/paste and edit this.

AySz88^-^ 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we could make an article that was more than a stub of two or so paragraphs for every named storm, we should do it. Unfortunately, I don't think that there IS that much to write about every storm. And also, and more importantly, I think the majority of the storms that COULD have articles would be neglected and left with stubs. I also don't think article length is a problem, as we've got it well-divided into sections. Also, some people have said that the current format is overly technical, well.. to expand the info we have, we've need to make it even more technical. So I don't think that this plan would work out very well. Although I wish it could. --Patteroast 05:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not paper - but that doesn't mean we should make articles about every single weather system. Why stop at cyclones? I hear there might be tornadoes this year. Remember - We are a reference work, not a comprehensive journal. That's what the TCRs are for. I generally disagree with this shift for two reasons - One, I generally disagree with the shift, and two, you'll have to change several hundred season articles and make several thousand storm articles. And no, I don't think we need that. Most of these storms aren't notable. Period. Even if the NHC named them. --Golbez 06:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that implementing this doesn't necessarily imply going back to every single season and doing it for all of them - I mean, beyond a certain year in the past, you already stop getting annual articles and get decadal articles. Heck, this could just start next year with the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. As for the last couple sentences, getting rid of the notion that a named storm has to be "notable" (a very subjective word) for an article is part of the point (I'm using the "article" more as an organizational bin instead of some special status), so it's a little off-track to argue that they shouldn't get articles because they're not notable. Also note it's really just a reorganization of information that will have been existing or will have had existed (i.e. the history of "current" information over a storm's lifetime) - there's not much demand for additional stuff except maybe statistics to plug into tables.

"Getting rid of the otion that a named storm has to be notable"? So we're going to start having articles about non-notable things? --Golbez 06:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

(Why are my comments always getting broken up into pieces by replies?) The sentence was partly against the subjectivity of "notable" and partly against allowing the notion of "notability" get in the way of better usability. AySz88^-^ 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that success would depend on whether the articles get enough treatment. But really, there's how many of us looking at a storm during its whole lifetime, 10 or 15? Also, I think it's specifically noted somewhere that a "full article" can consist of only a few paragraphs - articles don't have to be long to be full. AySz88^-^ 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Other odd basins

I wonder why there is are no tropical cyclone activity in the south-eastern pacific... in the areas of easter island and chile?... pls, can anyone tell me the answer? thnx... RoswellAtup

The ocean currents in the Southeast Pacific bring up cold waters from the Southern Ocean, and keep the water temperature generally too low for tropical development. Then again, I bet in the height of summer, storms probably COULD form there.. they just would tend to be very rare. --Patteroast 05:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of a tropical cyclone forming in that part of the world. I think conditions are less favorable there than in even the south Atlantic. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The waters off the Chilean coast are way too cold for any type of tropical cyclone to form, even in summer. 200.124.33.78 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Button bar poll

Let's just take a vote on the button bar and get it over with.

Keep it

1. KEEP IT.--WolFox 06:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) It shows more information than just the Table of Contents (ToC). It shows the category and now shows the full name if you hover the mouse over it. The ToC does not show the category. I don't want to have to scroll all the way to the top when I'm at the bottom of the page just to find a specific hurricane. Makes intrapage navigation easier overall.

   The only people that know what the colors mean are the regular contributors to this article. You think the average Joe will know that yellow means Category 3? You don't have to scroll all the way to the top without the bar to get to the TOC, hit the home key, takes you to the top of the page. --Holderca1 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   Again, the key is the template {{Saffir-Simpson-US}}, which already exists in the article.

   (edit conflict; I misclicked save instead of preview) Most people would be able to tell naturally that redder means more intense, and there are tooltips. (I think the tropical storm and depression colors need to be dimmed/washed out, though - those colors are too intense and attract too much attention.) AySz88^-^ 00:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   And who'd know that the colours are supposed to represent the Saffir-Simpson scale? The fact that the {{Saffir-Simpson-US}} is there doesn't make a difference if no-one knows the button bar's colours are taken from the template. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   So what do you propose to fix that? Perhaps make the bar two lines with a mini-key to the side, unless that's too visually unappealing? AySz88^-^ 00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   Also, the Saffir Simpson scale template is not on the storm articles which also have the button bars. --Holderca1 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   That is, actually, one of the reasons why a copy should be placed on the main season page, since it, after all, serves partially as a portal to the other pages for the season. AySz88^-^ 00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   I actually think most people find the main page by going to an individual storm page first or being redirected when looking for a storm that doesn't have its own article. I don't know if there is a way to do this or not, but is there a way we can find out what the hit counts are for articles? --Holderca1 23:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong Keep, of course. AySz88^-^ 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
3. KEEP, for reasons already stated by Wolfox. - JVG 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. STRONG KEEP, for reasons stated by Wolfox. --CFIF 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. KEEP. I say keep it, but put it in both at the top and at the bottom. Like what WolFox said, having it at the bottom of the page would make intrapage navigation easier. But, placing it at the top of the page will make it easier to find a specific storm when just loading the page from scratch. --Super-Magician / Talk 13:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak keep. But strongly disagreed with Super Magician. The table of contents serves that purpose the button bar serves. The button bar should be used by people at the bottom of the page who don't want to scroll all the way back up to the table of contents. The button bar is strictly designed for use at the bottom of the page. It has the general appearance of a bottom-table. Keep it where it was designed to be. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   I guess that would make sense. The only problem is the TOC appears much lower on the page now than before due to all the new templates; it also appears after all the writing in the first section (section 0, not the season summary). Having it at the very top would make it so that you didn't have to scroll down to the TOC. In addition, the TOC is a little cumbersome to read/scroll through, as it has the full names of each of the cyclones. The button bar lies on just one line. Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

7. KEEP, but only at the bottom. Lord Bodak 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Keep at the bottom. Not the most attractive button, but somewhat useful.—Gaff ^ταλκ 17:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Keep perhaps just at the bottom crandles 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Keep I'm one of those average Joes and I found the notation and the colors on the bar easy to understand. For an article this large, having a compact button at the top made it more convenient to find the storm I wanted. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
11. KEEP Preferably at the top and bottom, but just the bottom would be an acceptable compromise
12. Keep Rarely is so much information conveyed so simply and efficiently. Kudos to the designer. This is not my field, but I understood it almost instantly. --Aranae 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
13. KEEP, a/k/a WHY VOTE IF IT DOESN'T COUNT? Ummm, I find it a really useful innovation. An All-Years Page might be very interesting, where all the button bars could be looked at simultaneously. But definitely keep the thing. It's useful in ways the ToC isn't, and isn't designed to be. But, it seems not to matter how anyone votes; more of us want it than don't, and yet... it's removed anyway!?!?!? Someone from Palm Beach County, Florida doing the counting here? Chad? Chad? --Sturmde 06:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    Calm down please. This may come as a surprise to you but it can be put back. --Golbez 07:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

14. KEEP Contrary to popular belief I simply put it back because I thought it looked good, and because the unilateralism in removing it when there seemed to be a slim majority in favour of keeping it annoyed me. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of it

1. Bam. Though I am not agreeing that Wikipedia is a democracy by taking part in this. Golbez 06:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   Even if it's not a democracy, we still have to reach a consensus. A vote is one way to reach one. See WP:CON--WolFox 06:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2. REMOVE IT and NEVER USE IT in the main articles. IT's absolutely fugly. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Might be of some use in the individual storm articles, but I don't think it fits in the main article. --Patteroast 11:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong Remove--Holderca1 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Remove in its current form, since the list of storms serves the same purpose. However, on the individual storm pages (and disambiguation pages?), links to other storms of the season should be shown in a different format. CrazyC83 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Remove, ugly. Although I'm inclined to agree with CrazyC83. --Goobergunch|? 17:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Remove --Revolución (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Remove, except as an interarticle navigation template (only on the bottoms of the pages). --Mm35173 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Burn it. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Remove it. Sure, the button bar may look great and flashy for those who know the hurricane names, but that's what the Table of Contents are for. Also, if it is on the bottom of the site, then it shouldn't be there at all. --Americanadian 03:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

    I don't think I understand what you said... Would it not help both people who know the names and those who don't? Those who know the name can find it by first letter, those who don't know it might find it by the information conveyed by the other symbols. (As for being at the bottom... {{viacom}} is linked at the bottom of Viacom, and I don't think you can argue against it being helpful there as, at least, a very organized See Also list.) AySz88^-^ 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

    I think a template like the one you see at the bottom of the Viacom page is much better than the button bar. I would be more supportive of something like that. --Holderca1 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

11. Remove, I won't make a fuss over it, but it is just simply horrible. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to know which one of you is using IP sockpuppets to constantly put it back. But hey, you kids have your fun. I've probably gone over my three reverts and I don't care. Report me. In fact, that's what would be required, wouldn't it, since I'm certainly not going to enforce it on myself. (Nor am I allowed to) This is not consensus, it's railroading by someone who had his feelings hurt and is getting other IPs or friends to help him out. --Golbez 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's only at the bottom of the page (which I think is the best option), it's not an eyesore. Stop making personal attacks on people. I don't know the person who made the bar, nor do most people here. I just saw it and thought 'Hey, that's a great idea!' Stop degrading people whose opinions differ from yours.--WolFox 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Will you turn against the sockpuppets at well? Yes, an IP address with no edits miraculously decides, hey, I'll make my first edits by constantly adding the button bar. I wonder who it could be... I'm not degrading anyone that's undeserving of it. Are you a sockpuppet? If not, then congratulations, you're safe from my ire. --Golbez 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

With this is the most obvious, 210.84.15.143 and 203.214.26.233 are the same person. Not only do they both constantly keep adding in the button bar, but they both have contributed to Talk:Public Transport Users Association and have similar language usage. --Holderca1 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, not so. I have a fair idea who the other person is, though. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to his credit, he already removed most/all of the personal attacks..... AySz88^-^ 06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Who all would be willing to compromise and only have it at the bottom, not at the top? I think that's the best thing to do with it.--WolFox 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs on the season page at all, we already have at least 4 links to each storm article in it, including one near the bottom in the list of storm names, why do we need another. I don't feel it adds anything beneficial to the article. --Holderca1 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there's too much ambiguity within "delete", going by the comments under "delete". There should probably be a difference between those who think it is "ugly" but support the functionality and those who disagree with adding the functionality at all. It appears some people interpreted "delete" as including "needs improvement" or "remove pending improvement". If a seperate option had been added for that, it might have attracted a bigger concensus at this stage. It would seem to me that "remove it" really means permanently deleting it off the face of the planet, like a "don't bother working on it" kind of thing, though others might not have read it that way. (Personally, I think the bar would need to be improved in appearance, which is why I voted "support".) I suggest perhaps just working on it until we get a visually appealing bar and a compromise with consensus, since there's obviously no consensus either way right now (as of a 9 - 9 tie) - neither enough to place the bar on the articles nor delete the template. AySz88^-^ 00:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I took it as pertaining to just this article. It should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones if you want it to cover every usage. --Holderca1 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Season summary

I'd do this myself, but I don't seem to have much time on my hands. There doesn't seem to be a description or synopsis on Hurricane Wilma in the season summary section. In contrast, there is information concerning Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. --Super-Magician 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

October summary

Does anyone find this to be odd? They said the official death toll for Stan was 100. Also in the detailed portion they said:

AROUND THE TIME OF STAN'S EXISTENCE...TORRENTIAL RAINS CAUSED SEVERE
FLASH FLOODS AND MUD SLIDES OVER PORTIONS OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL
AMERICA.  THERE WERE 652 DEATHS REPORTED IN GUATEMALA AND 133 WERE
REPORTEDLY KILLED IN MEXICO...EL SALVADOR...NICARAGUA...HONDURAS...
AND COSTA RICA.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE...HOWEVER...TO DETERMINE HOW MANY
OF THESE DEATHS ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO STAN.

I always thought hurricanes cause torrential rains. --Holderca1 19:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think they're saying other storms move in at the same time Stan did, and those may have caused the landslides, not Stan. They're just being conservative I think. The TCR will have the full info. --Golbez 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The real number will likely never be known. After all, some bodies were probably decomposed in the mud and they will have a hard time confirming them - or even finding them. As for the direct/indirect figure, I'd expect almost all (if not all) of the deaths to be directly associated with the storm, as it was a mudslide disaster primarily. CrazyC83 00:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Who's the idiot who renamed hurricane Katrina to hurricane Fetus?? Why? There's no reason. At all! WHY?! I assume it was the same person who thought it would be funny to rename tropical storm Lee to tropical storm 'Poop' yesterday. Can you people just stop? 70.156.144.148 19:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people just have the mentality of Beavis and Butthead. --Holderca1 19:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to bring up a subject that has been discussed for a long time already, but I do seriously think it would be beneficial to require users to register before editing. I work on an article that receives a high level of vandalism due to its political status (Democratic Party (United States)) and the vast majority of vandalism is done by anonymous users. --Revolución (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. They may or may not be working on a "semi-protection", where only registered users can edit. But again, this is not the place to discuss. --Golbez 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject is vandalism. Tell me how what I said wasn't related to vandalism. --Revolución (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it was relevant since the vandalizing user was an anonymous IP. --Revolución (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject is the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. If you want to propose changes to Wiki software or policy, we have the Village Pump. --Golbez 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Economic Effects Paragraph

I propose adding the following paragraphs to the article in a new section, perhaps after the storm summaries. It is mostly a rewrite of part of the season summary, as well as parts of some of the storm articles. This would also entail removing the paragraph of the season summary section that starts "The level of activity this season has had..." This is what I propose adding:

This season has had far-ranging economic consequences. The economic effects of Hurricane Katrina have been particularly important.

The damage estimate from Hurricane Katrina alone makes this season the costliest season in history, with total damage estimates reaching 100 billion USD. Wilma and Rita are also among the costliest Atlantic hurricanes. This has caused large payments by insurers. However, as insurance companies buy reinsurance to spread the risk around, they are not likely to be threatened with bankruptcy.

Rita and Katrina also damaged crude oil production in the gulf. Due to the low overhead of additional global capacity for petroleum production, and the vulnerability of both oil extracting and refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico, storms have led to speculative spikes in the price of crude oil. The damage to refinery capacity in the United States caused gasoline prices to soar to prices, when adjusted for inflation, exceeded only by the two inflationary spikes of 1918-1920 and 1979-1982. Governments worldwide tapped strategic reserves of gasoline and petroleum as shortages were reported in the days after Katrina in areas heavily dependent on the Gulf of Mexico for refined gasoline. These elevated prices remained for weeks after the storm. Rita also damaged exploratory wells, leading to concerns that future production would be dampened for some time to come.

Hurricane Wilma disrupted the sugar and citrus fruit industries. Wilma’s damage to fruit trees could have an impact for several growing cycles, compounding problems caused by last year’s season. Florida’s sugar industry was hard hit, as the harvesting had already begun and had to be halted indefinitely. Damage to sugarcane crops was critical and widespread.

Tourism has also taken a hit. Katrina caused heavy damage to New Orleans, disrupting its tourist industry. Mexican tourist havens Playa del Carmen, Cozumel, and Cancún all suffered significant damage from Emily and especially Wilma, causing a major loss of tourism revenue for some time to come.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's a summary of the entire season, rather than the current practice of summarizing each storm's individual effects. Jdorje 04:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Layout

The top of this article has the worst layout, I changed it earlier today to make it more presentable but it was reverted. Right now, the infobox sits alone at the top with a huge amount of white space. The text then begins at the bottom of the infobox, then the ToC and Saffir-Simpson scale box throw everything off as well. --Holderca1 03:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What screen resolution are you using? There is no giant white space for me using 1024x768. Oh, you mean the white space between the ToC and the SSScale (Saffir-Simpson Scale)/active infobox? It's not that big for me, and I just quickly scroll past that with the PgDwn key. (for those interested in looking at Holderca1's version, here it is) -- RattleMan 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I just fixed it again before seeing this. There is a huge block of whitespace for IE - the season statistics table is on the right with nothing on the left, and then, below that, the season summary text appears alongside the Saffir Simpson Scale. AySz88^-^ 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, at second glance, it appears Holderca1 went a step further. (I am still of the opinion we should just kill the automatic ToC in favor of something more compact.) AySz88^-^ 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

H-O-L-Y COW. I am using Firefox, and just looked at it in IE as you said - WOAH. That's some huge rendering difference! I didn't know you were using IE, Holderca1, sorry. We have to fix that! -- RattleMan 05:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I thought I was losing my mind or something. I am using 1024x768, but wouldn't have thought IE and others would render the pages that much differently. What does it look like on Firefox when the ToC is floated? I see no problem in creating a custom ToC to help out the layout of the page. --Holderca1 13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's how your ToC-floater version looks in Firefox: [7]. A difference between the two is that in Firefox the SSScale is pushed down to right next to the "In early October, the relatively weak Hurricane Stan..." sentence, while in IE the SSScale is right under the Wikinews thing. -- RattleMan 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is interesting, I wonder why it moves the SSScale down that far. --Holderca1 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Seperate article for records set this season

While we're all on the subject of reorganizing and trimming down the article, I propose creating an entirely separate article on the records set during the season. It's long enough to make an article of its own and it could just be summarized into one or two paragraphs on the main page. This would cut down on the overly large size of the article and I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done. bob rulz 04:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly a reasonable suggestion. How would we format it? We'd have to allocate a section for the earliest formation records. We may also want to do some research and see if there are any records not listed in the records section. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I probably disagree; the records don't mean too much without the context of the season, and it's not THAT long. I dunno. I'm not necessarily voting no, I'm just not seeing how it would make things better except for length. I could easily be wrong, though. And PS, remember, the timeline will be gone at the end of the season, which will cut the article length down a bit. --Golbez 18:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arlene Article

I intend to create a new article for Arlene. The summary on the season page is too long and deserves to be split off (in my opinion). Also, there are 3 pictures [8] that can be integrated. Jdorje 02:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too long, I think it's just right. What more useful information do you have? An article with just what we have will be short. --Golbez 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember the year distinguisher on that one, it has to be distinguished from the other 8 Arlenes (and the 10th one in 2011)...although I don't see the need for an Arlene (2005) article. Try testing it in a sandbox and only keep it if it is over 20k after creation. CrazyC83 06:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on how long an article should be. When something gets to 20k I consider it's time to start splitting it up. (BTW, how do you find the size of an article?) Jdorje 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

One easy way: edit the article, copy the entire text, paste it into the edit box five times, hit Preview, and when the "This article is XX kb long" warning comes up, divide XX by five, and that's the original article length. (If the message doesn't come up, the original article was < 7 kb.) sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What to trim?

(This discussion relates in large part to the ones above, but I've started a new section for it anyway.)

I guess the first question is: how long should the article be? My standard is that it should be short enough and readible enough that a regular person could read it straight through. It is certainly much longer than this. Other standards may differ, but I don't really understand the desire to keep every bit of data in this one article when splitting it up makes things more accessible, not less.

The next question is: what should be trimmed from the article? I estimate the article is currently:

• 15% summary (including summaries of many storms, and pretty readible)
• 40% storm summary
• 10% timeline
• 2% ACE tables
• 30% records
• 3% storm names
• 2% external links

The only thing I really have to say is the timeline, storm summaries, and records sections are all too long. The timeline should be moved completely into its separate article and simply referenced from the main article. The storm summaries are both too long (since they take up most of the article) and too short (since with 2 paragraphs each they don't include enough information about many storms, prompting the need for a separate article for these storms). They are also duplicated with the season summary which also includes a summary for many storms (the Katrina summary in the summary is just as long as the summary in the storms section). I suggest these also be moved *entirely* into a separate article, or even moved each into their individual articles (yes they would be short articles; so what?). The main article is then itself just a summary of the whole season. The records section should stay, however the first half of it is just a list and needs to be weeded out (or it could be made into a table and put off to the side).

If we did all this, we'd be left with an article that is half the current size, and would probably be a lot more interesting to a casual reader.

Jdorje 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"The timeline should be moved completely into its separate article and simply referenced from the main article." Good thing that's what we've already done and will happen in full at the end of the season, so. Perhaps the summary should be shortened then, and I don't understand what you think should be done with the too-short summaries. What's wrong with the structure created for the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season? Critique that, please, tell me how it should be improved. I disagree 200% with moving the storm summaries to another article. I do, however, agree with making the earliest-formed list a table. But that's about it. --Golbez 04:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong is that for 2004 it lead to an article that was almost too long...and the 2005 article is twice as long (even after the planned trimming it would still be 50-75% longer). Jdorje 05:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that we, apparently, are not going to split the storms off the season article (which is equivalent to merging the texts of many mini-articles into the season article), 50-75% larger certainly isn't bad. We have had 53% more storms than 2004, and several more major hurricanes, so it's logical that at least the storm summary, at least, would be 50-75% larger.

However, I agree with keeping only the most important records on the season page and putting most of the more-trivial records in a seperate article. AySz88^-^ 05:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course the activity of the season is the cause of the problem...but this doesn't answer what we will _do_ about the problem. The length of writing is also much greater for this season than previous ones (at least any before 2000), and there's no reason to think that will change in the future. Jdorje 08:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest-formed storms

Here is my proposal for a table format. I'm not sure how it should be integrated with the structure (headings). Jdorje 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rapid formation of storms in 2005
Almost every storm in 2005 has set a record for rapid formation. Below are shown the dates on which each storm formed, and the old record for earliest-forming storm of that number.

Storm #	Formation Day	Name	Old record	Difference
4	July 5	Dennis	Cindy - July 7, 1959	-2 days
5	July 11	Emily	Debra - July 23, 1959	-12 days
6	July 21	Franklin	August 4, 1936	-14 days
7	July 24	Gert	August 7, 1936	-14 days
8	August 3	Harvey	August 15, 1936	-12 days
9	August 7	Irene	August 20, 1936	-13 days
10	August 22	Jose	Jerry - August 23, 1995	-1 day
11	August 24	Katrina	August 28, 1933/1936/1995	-4 days
12	August 31	Lee	Luis - August 29, 1995	+2 days
13	September 2	Maria	September 8, 1936	-6 days
14	September 5	Nate	September 10, 1936	-5 days
15	September 7	Ophelia	September 16, 1933	-9 days
16	September 17	Philippe	September 27, 1933	-10 days
17	September 18	Rita	September 28, 1933	-10 days
18	October 2	Stan	October 1, 1933	+1 day
19	October 5	Tammy	October 25, 1933	-20 days
20	October 9	Vince	October 26, 1933	-17 days
21	October 17	Wilma	November 15, 1933	-29 days
22	October 22	Alpha	none	N/A
23	October 27	Beta	none	N/A

Here are my own calculations for storms 1, 2 and 3 that I put in Zo's October 2 subsection of the hurricane research project (doublecheck them to be sure):

1. 1st Storm - 132 days behind
2. 2nd Storm - 43 days behind
3. 3rd Storm - 25 days behind

-- RattleMan 05:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but what storms and seasons are they from? The first storm isn't Hurricane Alice is it? I think that would be wrong (Alice should be part of 1954 not 1955.) Jdorje 06:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what I get from the HURDAT data:

01: 01/18/1978 SUBTROP 1
02: 05/17/1887 NOT NAMED
03: 06/11/1887 NOT NAMED
04: 07/05/1959 CINDY
05: 07/16/1997 DANNY
06: 08/04/1936 NOT NAMED
07: 08/07/1936 NOT NAMED
08: 08/15/1936 NOT NAMED
09: 08/20/1936 NOT NAMED
10: 08/22/1995 JERRY
11: 08/26/1995 KAREN
12: 08/27/1995 LUIS
13: 09/08/1933 NOT NAMED
13: 09/08/1936 NOT NAMED
14: 09/10/1933 NOT NAMED
14: 09/10/1936 NOT NAMED
15: 09/16/1933 NOT NAMED
16: 09/27/1933 NOT NAMED
17: 09/28/1933 NOT NAMED
18: 10/01/1933 NOT NAMED
19: 10/25/1933 NOT NAMED
20: 10/26/1933 NOT NAMED
21: 11/15/1933 NOT NAMED

Note that this conflicts with what's in the table now in a few places; this needs closer analysis (for instance in #5 it's because 1997 has a subtropical storm that's not mentioned on the season article but is included in the HURDAT). Jdorje 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Jdorje 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)