Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17

"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics

The Project

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

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)


October 17

  • 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 - ahead of the old record for 19th
  • 23rd storm - ahead of the old record for 21st, and still ahead of 1995's 19th.
  • 24th storm - just three days behind the old record for 21st
  • 25th storm - just eight days behind the old record for 21st
  • 26th storm - two weeks behind the old record for 21st

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

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 [1]. 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)

Gaps

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

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

If Delta lasts into December, or a late storm forms, how does that figure into the gap time as a percentage of the season? --Route56 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The time spent off-season won't count. CrazyC83 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Season started: June 1 0400Z.
  • TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.
    • A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.
  • HPC stops monitoring Arlene on June 13 2100Z.
  • TD 2 formed: June 28 2200Z.
    • A gap of 15 days, 1 hour.
  • Bret dissipates on June 30 0300Z.
  • TD 3 formed: July 3 2100Z.
    • A gap of 3 days, 18 hours.
  • Emily dissipates on July 21 1500Z.
  • TD 6 formed: July 21 2100Z.
    • A gap of 6 hours.
  • Franklin went extratropical on July 29 2100Z.
  • TD 8 formed: Aug 2 2100Z
    • A gap of 4 days.
  • Irene went extratropical on August 18 1500Z.
  • TD 11 formed: Aug 22 1600Z
    • A gap of 4 days, 1 hour.
  • Jose dissipated on August 23 1500Z.
  • TD12 formed: Aug 23 1835Z.
    • A gap of three hours 35 minutes, rounded up to four hours.
  • HPC stops monitoring Rita on Sept 26 0900Z.
  • TD19 formed: Sep 30 2100Z.
    • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Stan on Oct 5 0900Z.
  • Tammy formed: Oct 5 1130Z
    • A gap of two and a half hours, rounded down to two hours (as the call was likely made previously).
  • HPC stops monitoring Tammy on Oct 6 2100Z.
  • STD22 formed: Oct 8 1500Z.
    • A gap of 1 day, 18 hours.
  • STD22 dissipated on Oct 9 0300Z.
  • Vince formed: Oct 9 1500Z.
    • A gap of 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Vince on Oct 11 0900Z.
  • TD24 formed: Oct 15 2100Z.
    • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Wilma on Oct 25 2100Z.
  • TD26 formed: Oct 27 0000Z.
    • A gap of 1 day, 3 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Beta on Oct 31 0300Z
  • TD27 formed: Nov 14 0300Z.
    • A gap of 14 days.
  • TD27 dissipated on Nov 16 1500Z
  • TD27 reformed as TS Gamma: Nov 18 2100Z.
    • A gap of 2 days, 6 hours.
  • Gamma dissipated on Nov 21 0300Z
  • Delta formed: Nov 23 2100Z
    • A gap of 2 days, 18 hours.
  • Delta went extratropical at Nov 28 1500Z
  • Epsilon formed: Nov 29 1500Z
    • A gap of 1 day.
  • Season ended: Dec 1 0500Z, with Epsilon still active.

(Off-season storm time does not count here)

ACE

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

I would second that. NSLE (讨论+extra) 07:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Seconded A435(m) 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagreed to an extent. While the information is interesting, how many people know what those magic numbers mean? How many people care to find out? Those figures are meaningless to the average person. The description of ACE given in the section does not tell the reader how to interpret the numbers (i.e. what's good and what's bad). So what point do they really serve? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The same could be said of just about any information in an encyclopedia. I'd never heard of ACE values until reading that section on this page. All I know about them I have learned from wikipedia (on this and the ACE page). Thus if this information is misleading, then I am sure I have a poor conception of what the values are. However, I think the ACE page is fairly clear in explaining. Maybe I'm a stats junky, but that information is the main thing I return to this page for (sadly, several times a day whenever there is a storm going). -- Rylan42 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

That is incorrect. When adding with different significant figures, the key is which decimal place is shared by all of the numbers (the least accurate decimal place). In this case it would be the tenths, since some numbers such as 38.6 exist on the scale. However, there are no individual storms with ACE numbers accurate only to the 1s place. Thus, when you add together the 24 storms you keep the tenths. 224.5 is accurate. Propagation of error is not the same as significant figures. -PK9 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think someone might have just changed it again. PK9 is correct - when you add or subtract two numbers with sig figs, the result may be a number with more sig figs than the numbers that were added, since the number is truncated based on place values, not number of sig figs. For example, 99.0 + 2.12 = 101.1 (four sig figs), not 101 (three sig figs). --AySz88^-^ 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's on the statistics page. If y'all are gonna make it, y'all are gonna have to use it. --Golbez 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't even know where the statistics page is, and honesetly, I don't know if I want to search for it. The ACE table is very useful, and I don't know why the information should be removed. I did follow the external link to the official page, and the wikipedia version was just much easier to use. I've not done any editing on the hurricane pages since there are much more knowledable and experienced people working on this. I'm just a reader. Still, I'm very tempted to try to figure out how to put the ACE table back. 129.120.106.137 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I immediately noticed that the ACE section was gone and I would like to see it restored also.
I vote for putting the ACE back in. I'd do it myself but other edits have been done since the removal, so I can't just revert, and I'm not expert enough to try to manually put it back in. PK9 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It's on the statistics page where it belongs. It's linked from the top of the main section. The ACE section is number bloat that has no business being in the article, especially when the information is linked right there. It takes up more space in the article than a storm or two, and if people are going to complain that the storms section is too long, maybe they should remove trivial information like that. I would love for someone to explain how Stan's ACE is useful information. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the statistics page. If you want to put it back, just copy from that page - but I suggest you do not. --Golbez 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I know it's on the statistics page, and it still took me a while to find the link to that page. Plus, I don't like having to scroll through that hideous chart just to find the ACE table. I'd like to see someone convincingly argue why "2005 atlantic tropical cyclone statistics" deserves its own page while "Hurricane Vince" does not. -PK9 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree complerely - there shouldn't be a statistics article. I think the death toll table should be deleted or moved back here, the colorful chart should be deleted, and the ACE chart should be deleted, or EXTREMELY summarized here. But as long as we have it, might as well use it. If you want to AFD it, go for it and I will support you, but I have other hills I'd rather die on than that. --Golbez 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many people are aware that the 2004 and 2005 seasons are effectively tied for the third most energenic seasons. This makes 2004 and 2005 the most energenic back-to-back seasons. Actually, the last three years have been the most energetic three seasons. The last 5 and 10 years have also been records. Wrs1864 19:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This can be expressed without an entire section and table. --Golbez 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Another vote for having the ACE table back in the main article. I missed it and I see it as concise information serving a good, well-defined purpose.Dunemaire 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that the link to the stats page has been added at the top of the main page, the information is much easier to find. If we have a statistics page, it makes since for the ACE values to be there (though, I do still miss them on the main page). Question: if we move all of that type of information to a stats page, should we then set up another page for this season's records and move all of them from here to there? The logic is the same for moving ACE, and I daresay that would shorten the article (which many people have expressed a desire for). 129.120.106.137 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

NSLE, relax, there are only a couple different IPs, and I really doubt they are sock puppets.
In this case, I think listening to the readers of the article is wise. There seems to be overwhelming support for returning the ACE table to the main article. (That does not imply that people support Golbez's opinon of a need to "summarize" the section in order to fit it in the main article, of course.)
Is there any such thing as a 'request for readership comments' or something similar we can put on the article, so we can get a better idea of what users want (not just for this issue, but things like the button bar too)? --AySz88^-^ 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotten caught up in trying to solve/close/end the Eddie sock scandal, so I've gotten that tendency. I have to say, it's suspicious, though, that all are IPs (95% ish) and all call for the return of ACE. NSLE (讨论+extra) 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
NSLE, I signed up for an account with Wikipedia earlier today (simpler process than I expected it to be). Earlier, I was signing this page (by hand) with the name "Rylan". I recently realized that handle name belongs to someone else, so I quit using it and just let the IP show. I am the one listed earlier in this section as 129.120.106.137. Would it clarify things if I go in and edit those to my new account name? Rylan42 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine. I've just been caught up in a similar situation, so things which look suspicious (like this) I'll assume sockpuppetry. Although for others it may be better if you do change anything you signed as "Rylan" to your username. NSLE (讨论+extra) 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Rylan"s in this section have been changed to "Rylan42" but looks like others are already archived. The "real" Rylan has probably never even visited this page so hopefully not any real confusion would result. That aside, I'm still in favor of either restoring the ACE values or keeping the link to the stats page at the top. I notice the link was just removed from the top, and now it is much harder for people that don't know about the other page to find it. Rylan42 04:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I actually agree with Golbez. ACE is a statistic, and should be kept on the statistics page. Most people will read, or actually at least scroll trough, the article, so the link will still show up near the bottom. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I still like having it on the main page, but it does make sense on the statistics page. I'm fine with that as long as the link is moved to a place it can be logically found -- either the very top of the page or in the links section. Currently, it is in the first section after the introduction. Rylan42 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I am 81.174.244.201 and I forgot to login before making the comment last time -- sorry -- I am not a sock puppet I believe, although I had never heard of the term till the discussion here. I still prefer to see it on the main page, but if there is a strong view against then can we have the ACE in the season summary table have a sublink to a storm breakdown given on the stats page or something like that... Nashikawa 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I zealously disapprove of removing the ACE from this page. I think all summary statistics should actually be included in this article instead of being a sub-article. Just because the article is long doesn't mean we can't stick it on one page. Bad year...lots of data. Good year...little data. For example...look up the verb "to run" in any dictionary. It's frigging long. Should it be separated into 50 little subarticles or should it remain as a single article? Or is it just a special case, like 2005? 70.177.68.209 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Didn't realize I wasn't logged in. That's me. Hopquick 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Working on a summary table

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

That is...extraordinarily colorful. Oh, and wind should NOT be in knots. Jdorje 06:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't help the supposed size problem with the article, and again, am I alone here in expecting people to be able to read? I don't need a table to tell me that Katrina was bad, or that Lee was a non-event. As for when Katrina made landfall, I think the article states that just fine. There remains only three Cat 5s to strike at intensity. --Golbez 08:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how anyone can consider a table an insult to their reading ability. Also, easier lookup of information = good. --AySz88^-^ 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • shrug* I just think over-tabularizing is a bad thing. I prefer to keep most things in text, and keep things that work best in tables (the earliest-storm chart) in tables. I guess what I'm saying is, if it's already in text, why table it? And if you're tabling it, does that mean you're going to remove it from the text?
Also, you're imparting information with color, which is considered bad, due to accessibility and browser issues. --Golbez 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
What's the problem with color if it's not the only place to get the same information? (i.e. the category and winds are listed right there!) --AySz88^-^ 16:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The landfalling category is mentioned in text? Because it's not. Could be added. --Golbez 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Landfall windspeeds are mentioned in text, which is plenty enough. - Cuivienen 21:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with using color, however too much color makes it look bad. I can't stand looking at a giant swath of teal and red accross my screen, it makes it hard for me to read the information contained within. PK9 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I do agree with you on placing this in the main article. I wanted it there at first but that is not going to work. Your smaller version may be usable, but even that is going to take up room in an already crowded article. (You are also going to be surprised by how big even that smaller table gets to be.) My thoughts at this point are to complete the thing and build a statistics article around it. If gets deleted, so be it, but I think that as an auxillary article it can work.
On the colors issue, all that I can tell you is that every time I look at it I find that my eye is being guided by them. Only at first glance is this a riot of color. Once you have some idea of what you are looking for (like say that category 4 and 5 storms), you find that you can go right to them with very little searching. --EMS | Talk 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. You should look at the Unisys page the 2005 AHS, which shows how big even your smaller version can be. I think that tabularizing the statistics is a good thing to do, but it is not going to work in a main storm season article. --EMS | Talk 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate the table idea entirely. To be brutally honest, the colors are hideous. They blind the reader and turn him (figuative gender) away. If I saw that, I would not be compelled at all to read the article. I would be confused, disoriented and would not grasp the subject well. The way we have it right now makes the reader grasp the subject. The length is a menial issue in my opinion. The article is 66 kb long now. This talk page has been 150 kb long without anyone saying a word. And now people want to replace a perfectly good article with a hidious table, what's wrong with this picture? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you reading my postings on this or not? I keep agreeing that this table does not belong in the main article, and most certainly cannot be a replacement for it. What I thought might be a good way of summarizing the season instead is big enough to be article in its own right. So my "out" is to go down the separate article route and see where it leads. I keep finding the table to be useful because of the colors. (BTW - I did not pick the storm colors. You can thank others for that, but I never was under any illusions that I would create another Mona Lisa.) I will complete the table and try adding some supporting explanation. The small SS-scale template will be a good help with that BTW. But in any case, let's deal with my current plans, and drop any pretense that the main article will see anything more of it than a link or two to it.
My previous posting still applies. It is unattractive to the reader wherever it's put. -- E. Brown

Article version almost done

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

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


My view

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you believe non-notable information should not be in wikipedia, then why does it comprise 60% of the article? The information you are talking about is the entirety of the storms section. The purpose of moving it into (one or more) separate articles is so that readers of the main article do not have to wade through it. Because yes: people do not want to read this (except very rarely, as a reference). Jdorje 09:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Just tell me exactly what information in the storm summaries section is not notable? bob rulz 09:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The information in the storms section is what we are proposing to move to separate articles; it is you who said it is not notable ("You don't need information on storms that are not notable"). I don't believe in notability criteria myself...but I am arguing along your lines. To follow those lines, there are two types of storms in the storms section: those that are notable and those that are not. For those that are notable, the info in this section is just a repeat of the "Storm history" from that storm's main article, and so unnecessary; this information is not interesting to have in the season article as the interesting bits are already included in either the summary or the summary. For those storms that are not notable, the information is itself not notable and so (according to your argument) does not belong in wikipedia. Q.E.D.. Now, my argument is slightly different: I don't mind including non-notable information so long as it is structured properly so as not to bog down the reader (which is exactly what the current format does, since it is way too long). Thus in my belief the entirety of the storms section does not belong in the season article, and the "obviously" best way to structure it is with one sub-article per storm. If nobody reads these sub-articles, who cares? At least you won't be forced to read it like you are now. Jdorje 09:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Reading your view, Jdorje, then, pray tell, what are you going to include in the season article? The season summary? Is that all? NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Take out the storms section and we will be left with a 27k long article: a good size. There is also more useful information that can be added to the article at this point, since the Season summary section can be better structured, more storm tables can be added, etc. One example is the Economic effects section that was suggested. Jdorje 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
While, yes, it is good for the articles to be below 32k, there is no official rule anywhere that says it has to be. There are many well-written articles that are 40k or even 50k long, and, personally, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. And take out the storm summary section? WTF? Note: 2005 hurricane season. The hurricane season wouldn't exist without the tropical cyclones. Take out the tropical cyclones and then what do you have? GASP! Nothing! Becuase they are the season. They make up the season. Would you have, say, a first-person shooter without the badguys and the guns? No. You know why? Because that is what makes up a first-person shooter! OKay, bad comparison, but you get my point. The separate tropical cyclones are what makes up the season as a whole, and *GASP*, it wouldn't exist without them! bob rulz 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
That argument is highly flawed. Every storm already receives mention in the 'Season summary' section. In fact the 'Season summary' already gives almost all of the notable information about all the storms (a few things, like damage, strength, location of each storm are not given but are already being considered for addition to the deaths table). For instance, compare the two forms below: one from the storms section, the other of which should be in the Season summary section. Based on your notability criteria, what does the first form offer that the second does not? Nothing. Jdorje 18:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Tropical Depression Thirteen formed from a tropical wave about 960 statute miles (1,550 km) east of the Lesser Antilles on August 28. It then degenerated into a broad area of low pressure on August 29, but later regenerated on August 31 and the National Hurricane Center resumed advisories. Later that day, it strengthened into Tropical Storm Lee, the 12th named storm of the season. Later in the evening it was downgraded to a tropical depression, having encountered an unfavorable upper level environment. The tropical depression dissipated on the evening of September 1.

Lee never posed any threat to land while it was in the middle of the Atlantic.

One other hurricane (Irene) and one tropical storm (Lee) formed but never posed a threat to land.
<--
I agree that the storms section really needs to stay in the article, and it's at a good size as is. As for specific storm articles, I'm just a bit more permissive than bob. I think we could mention some things (such as pressure), and I'm a supporter of the Vince article (as I find that storm interesting.) But I think that the Cindy article is very unneccessary, and personally think the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma articles should probably go. As far as Alpha and Gamma go, I think the death count isn't really high enough to make them worthy of articles without any other reasons. Unfortunately, death numbers of those amounts are not at all uncommon in those regions. But I guess I wouldn't really fight people keeping them.
I liked the "economic effects" section, and I think it has a place in the article. And I rather like the idea of a seperate records article. I'd be sad to see the ACE table go, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. And honestly, I don't care about the button bar. I don't think it's needed, but it makes people happy, and it can stay if people want. But overall, I'm just tired of all the grief over the article size and what to do and so on and so forth. Some articles are long. We've had more than double the number of storms in a normal season. Some of them were very devastating. It will be long. It doesn't need to be tiny. --Patteroast 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Also note "2005 Atlantic hurricane season". To give each storm its due, the details about them need to be placed in their own articles, not cramped and cropped into a blurb on a page about the season.
The storms section can be cut down to size as details are moved from it to the articles, but it probably shouldn't be fully removed, as it serves as a fair storm-by-storm overview of the season.
"Notability" is very subjective, but the AfD for Tropical Storm Cindy shows that most seasoned general-Wikipedia editors think that it is more notable than whatever else is accepted on Wikipedia. Also, a small but fleshed-out article does not mean it should be merged into a page that basically serves as a summary.
The button bar is a wonderful tool for easier navigation, especially if individual storm articles are established.
Keep the ACE table in some form, since it'd be a shame to just lose that information, but agreed in that there's too much emphasis on it.
Records can be split off, general economic effects can be added (but that also highlights the difference between a season's details and each storm's - that section probably will summarize the season's effects, and nobody would want this article to detail the economic effects of every storm, since that goes into the individual storm articles).
Don't forget that there is also an introduction and sections in each storm's article - the introduction to the article serves those who want a simple overview of that storm and is basically what are the storm summaries now. That level of detail won't be skipped.
--AySz88^-^ 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I largely agree with AySz88. We need to shorten up the storms section, but retain the detail in individual storm articles for the most part. As-is the descriptions of each storm in the main article are way too long. It is my view that we need to come up with a new format and policy for these articles. There is too much data benig made available due to the increase in the size of the pool of editors who work on these pages. IMO, that alone may have made it so that doing atorm subpages is a viable and reasonable option when in was not before. At the least, the threshold for being "significant" enoughto justify an article has been reduced by the increased paritcipation.
My view is that we need to figure out how to organize what we have, and leave it for the future to determine what is or is not significant. We may well find that as a general rule that individual articles are quite appropriate for recent seasons but that as time goes on and interest wanes that a contraction is necessary and reasonable. However, I am loathe to make that judgement while still in the thick of the season. Let's act as pack rats for now, and see how we feel about the result when we have had a chance to gain a little perspective. After all, it is easier to delete content that to recreate it. --EMS | Talk 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
A little summarization is all that is needed. I agree completely with you Bob rulz, and here is my version of what I think should happen. Mine is 35 kilobytes, but it includes every storm with some loss of text (oh well, it's shorter and, IMO, more interesting). Hurricanehink 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
That is an excellent start, but the storm summaries and still too big. (I would pare the descriptions to the bare bones, and let much of the detail be placed in individuial storm articles myself.) However, moving the records discussion to another article is an excellent idea (which I had been considering myself). I would also get rid of that oversized Saffir-Simpson scale graphic near the top: This article is about the season, not the SS scale. --EMS | Talk 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The entire basis of this argument comes from the fact that some people here, a minority, have deemed that weaker storms are not notable. You do not have the authority to define what is notable or not notable; if individual articles are being created on storms, and are being filled up with information, then they are obviously notable. As for the changes above made by hink, I have to disagree, since they do not resolve the main problem which is the excessive length of the Table of Contents. Also, it does not include the storm tracks. See my tabled version above. --tomf688{talk} 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The length of the Table of Contents is not the problem here! Now, personally, as I have said before, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. There are quite a few well-written articles on Wikipedia longer than this one! However, that does not mean that it shouldn't be cut down a little. Hurricanehink, your suggestion is fairly good compared to others I have seen, although there are quite a few things I'd personally do different (such as get rid of the massive Saffir-Simpson Scale table and certain grammatical things; no big deal). It needs to be updated with how the pictures and current storm tracks are arranged at the moment, and I would keep the table on the number of deaths for each storm, but we could figure everything out from there. We don't need to do anything fancy, we don't need to separate every storm into a separate article. I actually think it's a reasonable solution, just needs to be updated and touched up a bit. bob rulz 08:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Bob. I actually made that back when Wilma was around, so I didn't change a few things when the other storms came. I complete agree with what you said. The hurricane articles should be on here, not in sub pages. Mine is now 41 with the changes you suggested, not as bad as the current 67. I personally think the forecast section can be made much shorter, but that's just me. I did not change that part, but in the future someone can make it shorter. I put the TOC on the left so you wouldn't have to scroll so far for the first section. Hurricanehink 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If you try to squeeze the "hurricane articles" into this article (which serves as a summary of the season), you are losing the information off the face of Wikipedia! Hurricanehink's shortening would be fine, for example, except why the opposition to moving the details to separate articles instead of removing them completely?
My primary issue is that there currently isn't a place for these details to go - many are certainly not notable enough on an article about the season as a whole. My main motivation is not that the article is 'too long', though that should be taken into account because of others already expressing their views on that matter. It's just that moving the details has the added beneficial side effect of allowing the shortening the summary of the season, since unnecessary details (for the season article) are now in the individual articles.
Bob, the length of the Table of Contents is a separate issue related to how it renders in IE (there's a LOT of extra whitespace). --AySz88^-^ 19:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
<--

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

I have to agree with AySz88 here. The main problem with removing storm articles (they're not subpages) is information loss. If an article can be written about one (and by that, I don't mean just how it formed and its track, I'm talking about substantial information like casualties and formation history), then there is no need to get rid of it. If there is no information, then it can't be written, and it should probably not exist. But that said, the users who are going to come looking for the Tropical Storm Cindy (2005) articles are probably those who are going to be interested in the technical details about them, because they're doing research or other things. More information = good. Too much information in one place = bad. Titoxd(?!?) 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd summed it up well, and I absolutely agree. If articles are being written, it is ridiculous to delete them in favor of having less information. People come to an encylcopedia to obtain technical details beyond a simple summary, and they should be able to access that information here through a friendly interface instead of having to interpret the meteorological-techno-speak the NHC releases in its reports. And Eric, as I've said before, articles about Presidents, airplane models, planets, etc., aren't placed on one page, so that argument isn't really going to work IMHO. --tomf688{talk} 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You all seem to have completely ignored my point. Articles should only be created if there is enough useful information about it to justify an article. An article with just basic info about the storm is no good, the main article does that. We need articles with a lot of extra, interesting information. Not tedious, boring details. If you can meet these requirements for storms like Lee, I'll be very impressed. We want to create articles that people will want to read. Not fill a page with boring, stale, tedious details. If there is not enough interesting information presented in the article, then it should not exist. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether the exact same information is held in the season article, where people will have to skip over it, or if it's held in a separate article, where they don't have to read it at all? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article: details are important. My goal would be to make the season article one that is interesting to read (it's not now - bogged down with too much detail) while moving the details into sub-articles. Jdorje 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Eric. You summed it up nicely. We have articles on all of the tropical systems that have too much information to put on the main page, and no interesting additional information is available about the storms that nobody cares about. No information will be lost by keeping the articles the way they are. Please, no subpages. There is not enough info for all of them to have subpages. bob rulz 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Strange, it looks to me like two fully different arguments, which means I'm probably misunderstanding one of you.
Eric: The worry that information might not lend itself to an "interesting article" does not imply that the information should be removed from Wikipedia. Besides, moving the details would actually make both articles 'more interesting' since what you view as "tedious details" are out of 2005AHS (where readers are looking for a season summary and not a cropped and compressed article-squeezed-into-a-blurb on each storm) and are moved to the individual storm articles. (To be perfectly clear: though I do agree that your "tedious details" should be out of this article, I think they should be moved and not removed, since I would characterize them more like "too-in-depth details" or "off-topic details" for this particular article considering that the topic of the article is the season as a whole.)
Bob: I really don't see where you're getting that there's not enough information (see NHC TCRs, and existing in-progress pages, as well as the two earlier responses by Titoxd and Tomf688), and information has already been lost because people have/had been taking out "tedious details" (to use Eric's term).
--AySz88^-^ 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would you want to put boring tedious information that no one will read into an article? See my post here: [2] at the bottom of the section. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Tropical Depressions

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

User:Sarsaparilla39/Sandbox

Great idea! The depressions shouldn't be with the storms, but we can't just get rid of them. Good compromise. Hurricanehink 14:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, that's a nice organizational change. (We're "too crazy," eh, Hurricanehink?) --AySz88^-^ 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Got that right Aysz88. Sarsaparilla, you should go ahead and do it. Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This has been done before as on 1966 Atlantic hurricane season; I'm not sure why it wasn't continued. - Cuivienen 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I could get behind this, even though I actually like having the depressions in the main sequence. But I won't complain if it's done. Except rename "Other Storms" to "Depressions" maybe. Actually, removing them from the main sequence does make it easier to see which was the Xth storm. --Golbez 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
But why stop with depressions? Why not move non-notable storms like Lee over there too? Jdorje 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Because they're part of the main sequence of storms. The season included both Lee and STS22, but depressions are rarely if ever notable. Lee was notable essentially for incrementing the letter, but still necessary to fully explain that. Either split off the TDs, or don't, but don't split off the main storms. For the 2004 Pacific season, I attempted writing summaries only for the notable storms - that was apparently not what people wanted, as every Pacific storm for other seasons now has a writeup (the 2004 season article was the first one created). So people apparently want writeups for every main storm, but depressions, well, I said I COULD get behind it, but I prefer them to be in the main sequence. So maybe your interrogation is misdirected. --Golbez 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't think it's confusing, but I'll just go with the majority on this. --AySz88^-^ 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Moving the storms out of the main sequence makes it harder to determine when they occured in the course of events of the season. There is no real reason to move these. --tomf688{talk} 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I like the TD descriptions where they are and I believe it's better that way. bob rulz 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dennis report - minor changes

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

Where can Final Reports be found? --SargeAbernathy 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Click here for the Dennis report - other reports can be found here. I adjusted the timeline and made a few changes to the Dennis page to reflect the revised track. CrazyC83 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know where the best-track info from the final report can be found (in a convenient text format, that is)? Jdorje 09:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Dennis report, in Microsoft Word NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Unisys when it is released, not sure when it will be there. CrazyC83 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikicane

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

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

Well, Portal:Tropical cyclones can definitely be done, if people consider it to be a good idea. Titoxd(?!?) 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I actually was thinking about that once. I certainly won't stop anybody who wants to make it. bob rulz 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Then it's time to jump on the bandwagon and make it. I'll make that a blue link and I ask all the regulars here to go check that I'm doing everything right. Titoxd(?!?) 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Make Cyclones capitalised, though, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones... NSLE (讨论+extra) 06:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't read your comment, but fortunately, I had capitalized it anyways. It is available at Portal:Tropical Cyclones. Titoxd(?!?) 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Now, I need people with some creativity to help me fill this out. I'll go look at other portals for ideas, but I'd sure like it more if all of us contributed on this. Titoxd(?!?) 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks really good. I'm looking forward to its expansion. Anything in particular that I can do? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
There still is a lot to do! A layout has to be decided, and we have to decide what exactly to put on the main page. We also have to populate the list of categories, list of seasons, decide on an article to submit to WP:FA and Peer review. Also, we need to get ready for next season. Man... I think that we need all the hands we can get here. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

ACE and deaths tables

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

Removal of ACE

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

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

Current events tag

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

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

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

Latest storm dissipation

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

The second Hurricane Alice of 1954 developed on December 30, 1954 and lasted until January 5, 1955. CrazyC83 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
And that's assuming you place the cutoff at the year boundary. One could argue that since the season is 6 months long, the 3 months before and 3 months after should be considered part of that same season. This would mean January and February storms would count for the season before - and there have been several such storms. However the only official data I'm aware of is the NHC best-track ("HURDAT") data, and these list January storms as part of the next year (though it's not clear whether they do so consciously or just by default). Jdorje 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the cutoff has to be at the year boundary because January and February storms are given names off the 2006 list, not the 2005 one. It might not be the most valid choice, but its the choice the NHC/WMO has made. -PK9 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
And a fair one at that, since they are extremely rare. The oceans are too cold and too unstable most of the time. CrazyC83 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
If it were any year but 2005, I'd relax, but when I look at Dr. Gray's season summary and see stuff like this: As of November 16, no tropical cyclone activity was recorded during the month. Since 1950, 33 of 56 years have had no named storm development during November. Very few seasons have witnessed tropical cyclone development after November 18. And immediately 2005 drops 3 storms after the 18th on them... I wouldn't put it past December to have a couple for us. And maybe January, although that would go into the next year's wiki. -PK9 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the other official data would be the naming system, which would imply a Jan 1 cutoff. Jdorje 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well wait, what about the Southern-hemisphere seasons? Where do they put their cutoff? Would the convenience be enough for policies to be different for the Northern hemisphere? --AySz88^-^ 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of them have no cut-offs, they have lists that keep rotating regardless of year, like the Western Pacific and the Central Pacific. CrazyC83 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course...if a storm is named before midnight Dec 31 it uses a 2005 name,but would a numbered,near-storm-strength 2005 depression still get a 2006 name if it reached name status just after midnight?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also wondering what would happen with the ACE, would a late December storm that carries over contribute part of its ACE to 2005 and part to 2006? -PK9 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we the official hurricane source?

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

(Direct link) --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the way they categorise deaths into direct and indirect. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
There can be little doubt they are taken from wikipedia...or one of the mirrors. Jdorje 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Even the "(potentially more)" under the "Hurricane Katrina" death toll was probably taken straight from the Hurricane Katrina infobox. I wish the press would cite things like this, just to avoid possible self-reinforcing loops of bad information. --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Back up List

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

Alpha might be a candidate for retirement because Tropical Storm Alpha caused flooding that killed 33 people in Haiti and nine in the Dominican Republic in late October. Do you really think so? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea. I'd be curious to see what lists we could come up with...although I wonder if a male or female name should lead the list. I don't really think Alpha is a good candidate for retirement based on that description though... CrazyC83 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of which, 33 and 9? That's more deaths than we have recorded for Alpha. I'll go update the Alpha page. - Cuivienen 14:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)