Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

This season's featured articles poll

From the featured article criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurricane Dennis

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

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

Our Next Featured Article

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

  • I nominated Hurricane Katrina for the Article Improvement Drive. If you want to get it to FAC status, be sure to give your support. --Revolución (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Katrina set the standard, but the article is a mess; a lot of information needs to be moved to subpages (it is all relevant, but belongs elsewhere). Hurricane Emily would be my next nomination, or Hurricane Rita if slight cleanup is done (to get a 2005-standard article nominated - that being a post-Katrina article when we really began to standardize everything). CrazyC83 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Rita appears to be the closest. I want to nominate Ivan from 2004 even soon than that. The sooner it can be readied for peer review, the better. There are some tweaks that need to be done first. 2004AHS is also on the list. Tom, Tito and I have discussed this on my talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

New Footnote Formatting

The new footnote formatting was integrated by SEWilco's bot (SEWilcoBot). However, I feel it is EXTREMELY confusing to the average reader. Also, some of the textual footnote numbers do not match up with the numbers listed at the bottom of the page. For example, in the section about Tropical Storm Delta, the archive is listed as footnote "62". Go to the bottom of the page, and it is listed as "63". — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely agree, it looked 100% better before the change. --Ajm81 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks a lot better. I find that such formatting is much easier to do at the end of the season, or long after a storm dies, though. CrazyC83 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
When you say "it looks a lot better", do you mean it looks better now or better before the change? It seems like you're saying the formatting is better now. If so, I must disagree with you since the bottom of the page is now cluttered with these links. You have to click one additional time now in order to get to the page you want. Also, technically, these links are NOT footnotes. I don't see this kind of formatting on other pages with a hundred or so links. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a point; I like having the sources at the bottom but, if possible, a direct link from the footnote should be added. CrazyC83 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "direct link from the footnote"? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The error you mentioned above, Super, regarding 62 linking to 63, etc, was fixed. Also, please change your signature to {{subst:Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} to reduce the load on the Wikipedia servers. Thanks. --tomf688{talk} 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of it is unecessary - linking things this way defeats the purpose of the "The NHC's advisories on TS/Hurricane ABC" links. It's probably better to leave those alone if possible. --AySz88^-^ 02:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
After some consideration, this format would be okay with me if the number of links at the bottom were cut down. 67 takes up way too much space. I think around 20 (or less) would be best. --Ajm81 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this formatting. SEWilco seems on a mission to make this the standard way to do footnotes. He has been told not to implement such changes without obtaining a consensus first. Nevertheless, getting the preferred style for this article is probably more important than telling him off for making changes that may not be appropriate. It therefore seems appropriate to see what people prefer, so I am asking people to vote. (However, more discussion first may be appropriate.) crandles 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. No clear opinion yet. I am worried that the limited number of footnotes option is a bad one as people will try to enforce a single style. (Guess what SEWilco will do.) crandles 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The new format looks horrible. There is no reason to have to click on one of the footnotes, wait for the page to reload and go to the bottom of the page, and click on the link again. How did we go from the 30 we had before the change to the 68 we have now anyway? --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I just realized why there are so many footnotes now. There are several that are listed multiple times. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is your browser reloading the page? It shouldn't be. What browser are you using? --AySz88^-^ 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
If I click on one of the footnotes, it does reload the page and then go to the bottom. I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

New Footnote style

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

Old in-line links

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

Limited number of footnotes

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

Old-style when current, reformat later

  1. CrazyC83 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (it's easier to have the links there when we have a current storm, but it looks better with the footnotes below, so that should be reformatted when everything calms down)
  2. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC), it should be done, but only after all the flurry of activity is over. By the way, Hurricane Dennis is undergoing that same process. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some footnotes are missing, out of order, and/or misnumbered...again. I don't have time to fix it, so somebody that can, please. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The next FA

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

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

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

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

Random comment

File:NGC 628.jpg
The first ever Galaxy of Stars Award for Collective Accomplishment. Shazaam!

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

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


Separate articles for each storm?

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

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

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

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

Wonderfully said. The big 6 (D, E, K, R, S, W), Ophelia, Vince, and maybe Zeta and Epsilon (based on persistence and unusual off-season behavior), should all stay, IMO, but every other one should be condensed and redirected. Who cares about some loss of information? If it is just repetitive and all of the details can be said in a shorter space, what is wrong with that? I think those 10 I mentioned should stay, but that's just me. Hurricanehink 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the storm is worth some mention, or it wouldn't have its own section on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. But because the season was so long, the storms section is huge and the overall article is giant - much bigger than any other season article, and over twice as big as the recommended max article size. So how can it be trimmed down? Obviously by splitting it up into sub-articles. And the most logical way to divide the sub-articles is by storm. If some storms are non-notable enough that nobody ever reads the article, then at least that text (which is practically identical to the original text that is still on the season article) is now moved out of the way. The next step (which hasn't been done yet) is to cut out the storms section from the main article entirely, replacing it with the "season summary" section which already summarizes the notable points of each storm. Jdorje 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree - even if one thinks those details are irrelevant, it'd still be better to move the details to other articles than to keep it here.
Response to various posts above: I don't see how the fact that other (older) articles are less detailed implies that these articles have to have that same lack of detail also. There are people working on the articles, and I don't think other editors can say that some article should be deleted because other articles "deserve more attention", as what people wish to work on is not the determination of other editors.
An article on every tropical cyclone has to be more reasonable than one on every Simpsons episode (which is already endorsed as appropriate at m:Wiki is not paper), plus it satisfies summary style. --AySz88^-^ 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Far more reasonable. This is real information and real quotes, after all... CrazyC83 04:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Storm Articles

NO!

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

The conclusion then is simple: the storms section of the main article is not necessary and should be removed. All that's needed is a summary of the season (already included in the season summary) and links to the TPCs for more information. Jdorje 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with such a conclusion. --Golbez 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Because you do not think that a 75k, 30-page article is too long. I do think it is too long, yet all proposals for splitting it up have been refuted, mostly on the grounds of creating non-notable articles. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics has been created, but has mostly been populated with new information so this is hardly a split. Eric is arguing that information about non-notable storms is non-notable. If that's the case, why do we devote 50% of the article to such information? The entirety of the storms section is either redundant (with the season summary and with the storm articles) or non-notable. So what is its purpose? Jdorje 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the state it was in prior to the individual articles being made was just fine, apart from length, but it was a lengthy season. --Golbez 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jdorje's conclusion. This article needs to function as a summary of the season, instead of as a container for mini-articles, like it is right now. I don't understand the difficulty in transitioning from putting the information in a section of an article and in a seperate article. If it's in its own article, the notable information here is suddenly non-notable? But then adding more information that would be non-notable here would make the article more notable?
(Though, I would personally (severely) reduce the storms section instead of remove it completely - each storm should have some mention even if it's just "Tropical Storm Lee was short-lived and made landfall in Abcd, Mexico, forming in the Gulf of Mexico on x and dissipating on y.") --AySz88^-^ 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The information you're talking about is already mostly provided in the "season summary" section. All that's needed is a few more sentences to mention the non-notable storms: "Three other hurricanes (Irene, Nate, and Philippe) and one tropical storm (Lee) formed far out in the Atlantic ocean and never threatened land." Jdorje 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Then we lose all mention of those storms in that we can't tell the story...Besides, the articles on the least-notable storms do NOT meet any of the criteria listed in the WP:NOT list shown. It just is shorter than the more notable storms. Another thing: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There are no article limits! CrazyC83 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought that's why we were splitting the storms off into separate articles. But Eric's argument is that all of this information is not notable, and should not be included in wikipedia. I'm just pointing out you can't have it both ways. Eric, your argument is flawed because you are claiming it is the information that shouldn't be held in wikipedia, but you obviously don't believe this because you have already added this information to the season article. What you're actually saying is that you just don't want the extra articles. But wikipedia is not paper — if the information is to be present (which I think we all agree it should be), there is no reason why we have to structure it linearly. Jdorje 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you all have decided to take my advice about not wasting your time on this issue. Sigh. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? Sure, the articles may not be as necessary as some other articles, but are they actually causing any harm? No. Jamie C 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There's no harm to not making articles, either. --Golbez 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Jdorje, no offense, but that last post didn't make any sense to me, I'm sorry. I do not believe that information shouldn't be held in Wikipedia, nor was that my argument, don't be ridiculous. I believe that having two pages that say the same thing is stupid. I believe that certain information shouldn't be held in Wikipedia. Say you were running a newspaper and you heard that your neighbor's cat got stuck in a tree, whould you run it as a story? Your expressed sentiments suggest that that answer is yes. Discretion is a virtue my friend. Now, none of my questions were answered in any of these posts.
1. Many of those articles are just direct copies of the main article sections. What value would those serve?
2. How is length an issue? The page is 76 KB long. This talk page has been over or nearly 200 KB long twice before and no one said a word...either time! Nor do I see a problem with a long page. Just look at World War Two. So that argument has no merit whatsoever.
3. The information is mostly provided in the storm summery section? Uhh, no it isn't. I see mention of many storms, but most get half a sentence. I STRONGLY disagree with AySz88 about severely reducing the main article. The main article is the life-blood of the subject. It needs to provide the most information. All sub-pages are supposed to support it (hence the prefix "sub-"). It's like wanting a confederacy, in this case an extremely loose union of sub-pages with a main article comprised of a two-paragraph summery that runs together; rather than a republic, in this case a strong union of all topics under one summery with a few affiliated territories (the subpages). I prefer the republic myself, but that's just me.
4. Could you list all of the problems you see with NOT having articles for every storm? You guys have so far only mentioned like two.
Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
(before edit conflict)
  1. I don't understand your argument - why do you want details of a storm in the season article if the same storm is so non-notable that it doesn't deserve its own article? If you mean that we don't have enough information on Storm X, that's different because then there wouldn't be anything to split - but there is information to split.
  2. Such a long length is indicative of a lot of detail. I think the problem here is too much detail in an article that doesn't serve the purpose of holding that detail. Because there's no place to store those details, you are effecively arguing that the available detail is not appropriate for Wikipedia. From what I can figure, it's a lot more notable than the already-approved articles at List of Simpsons episodes.
  3. It seems to me like you're saying that the storms are so important that...they should be crammed into one article? Huh? And you're forgetting that the information still exists - it doesn't reduce the information, it's more of a reorganization.
  4. I think the burden of proof rests on your deletion of the articles, not our creation of the articles. But okay, off the top of my head:
    1. We have the information and need somewhere to put it
    2. This article is too long/crowded and needs to be split
    3. Splitting would move towards summary style
    4. If some article seems non-notable, any "non-notable" information here should be moved elsewhere anyway
    5. The existance of articles to such detail exemplifies the strengths of Wikipedia
    6. So what's the harm in creating more articles?
--AySz88^-^ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Just remember, if you want to bring back the articles, the information is right there on the previous edits... CrazyC83 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jdorje 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(after the edit conflict) Hmm. If I understand correctly, the case for not having the articles is that detailed information from Storm X is non-notable, and as a result the article on Storm X doesn't contain enough notable information to warrant the article's existance. I disagree that the information is non-notable in the first place - the storm is non-notabile from the mentality of starting from the context of the entire season, and then deciding whether something should be expounded upon. I think this is backwards in judging the notability of something when determining whether it deserves an article. Each of the storms, on its own, is probably notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. --AySz88^-^ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hate to bring it up, but perhaps a revision? I propose my own. It keeps the important information, yet doesn't go into too much depth, as that's what the links are for; menial details. Hurricanehink 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If you cut the article from 75k to 40k, where does the rest of the text go? Are you deleting information? Jdorje 05:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the purpose of the individual articles. CrazyC83 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm condensing. Rather than saying two medium sized sentences that are similar, I just said it one simple sentence. Things like that. Hurricanehink 15:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"In an individual storm article (like Hurricane Katrina), these details usually account for a small portion of the article, but in the 2005 season the storms section takes up about half the article." Then get rid of those details! We don't need them. Creation of articles is based on notability, not to shorten another article. The reason it's long is that it has too much useless information in it. If it doesn't deserve to be in the main article, then it doesn't deserve to be anywhere! We don't need menial details. Get rid of them!
Also, the information in the subpages you guys made was already in the main article and there was no more info that could be included. The information in articles like Rita and Wilma very much deserved to be in the main article. But putting it there would have broken with the summery style. Because there is so much useful information about those storms, articles on them were created. The Cindy article has yet to be expanded beyond what is said in the main article. Why? because there is nothing else to say! Every piece of info that is in the Cindy article is in the main article. And that was true for all of the subpages you created. That's called being redundant, repetative. It doesn't help the length "issue" whatsoever. All those subpages had was a brief storm history, a sentence telling you that it didn't do anything and little trivia bits that no one's going to care anything about. How is that adding any value? The storm history is already given in the main article, why repeat. This is why I agree with Hink.
Here are some good examples of good articles on minor storms:Hurricane Gaston (2004) and Hurricane Epsilon. If you can't provide at least that much more information beyond what is said in the main article, the article shouldn't be created...period. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Round of applause from right here. Hurricanehink 23:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But the details I'm talking about comprise the entirety of the storms section. I do not believe there is any information there that is notable (according to your standards) and not duplicated somewhere else (except where it's accidentally been left out). Surely you aren't in favor of getting rid of the entire storms section? Didn't you say above that Lee deserved more than just a 1-sentence blurb? Jdorje 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I think you're thinking of this notability thing backwards. Each of these storms, on their own, would absolutely be able to have their own article. The storms seem to be merged into the season page where there isn't enough available information for an article of any length beyond an introductory paragraph (or that information hasn't been found yet). I see many many details under the introductory paragraph for most of our new articles, I think.
Besides, would you really argue that the storms are less notable than individual Simpsons episodes?
I think you're misunderstanding summary style. If you think more information about Rita and Wilma should be in the summary, fine, move it here (in the "storm summary" section). If you think less detail should be here for less-notable storms, Summary Style says to split it off.
We were already planning to move the details (and you seem to agree the details are not appropriate for this article) by splitting off the less-notable storms into their own articles. I don't understand why you'd rather remove the information completely from Wikipedia instead of splitting it off. I don't think many other people would think that.
As soon as Cindy's TCR comes out, I'll go over there and try to get that article up to FA status, happy? :p --AySz88^-^ 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The information in the storms section is very notable, it just doesn't need to be repeaded in 50 dozen places, especially not a seperate article comprising of nothing but. The induvidual storm sections give storm history, impact, and miscellaneous trivia. That's all that's needed for many of the storms in the article, so there's no need to split them off into seperate articles. For storms like Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dennis, Emily and friends, there's more stuff that needs saying, so seperate articles for them are made and repatition there should be restricted to the basics. I'm very shakey about creating articles on storms less notable than Ophelia (storms with damage similar to Gaston).
AySz, your first paragraph made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I would recomend that you look 'notable' up in the dictionary and refresh you memory. "Each of these storms, on their own, would absolutely be able to have their own article." Uh, no, they wouldn't. The main article describes the lesser notable storms well enough.
"Besides, would you really argue that the storms are less notable than individual Simpsons episodes?" No, I wouldn't, but I wouldn't support creation of articles on those either.
"We were already planning to move the details (and you seem to agree the details are not appropriate for this article) by splitting off the less-notable storms into their own articles." Why? Why keep the menial details? The descriptions of the lesser storms are adequete here, nothing else needs to be said on them. You create subpages to describe a sub-topic in greater detail, not to use it as a collection bin for menial details. Wikipedia is not a dead-letter box. If a storms has a decent bit more than 15 sentences of notable information (or 3 paragraphs, 5 sentences each) then split it off. Tiny sentences, like "100 people died.", don't count.
And if you can turn Cindy into at least a Gaston-caliber article, I'll be very impressed. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A logical idea

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

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

Round of applause. Does this mean we leave everything as it is for now, with the exception of those articles with reports already? Plus, this means we could get rid of Alpha, finally. :) Hurricanehink 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It is logical for most seasons. The big problem with the 2005 season is that it leads to an article that is way too long, though I know you (Golbez) do not agree with this statement. It also leads (and will continue to lead) to tedious details bogging down an article that is otherwise full of interesting information, as excessive non-notable data (in particular, the storm histories of non-notable storms) take up a large portion of the article. While these flaws are not fatal, they prevent the article from being outstanding — which is a shame because it could be. Jdorje 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Long, smong. The article is just 76KB. That's to be expected for a subject this significant. This talk page has been over 200 kb long at times and is 133 KB long now. I agree with Golbez. That's a good plan. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel the second part of Jdorje's post is the key. --AySz88^-^ 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Then remove the tedious details, it's that simple. We don't need them, get rid of them. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric, I can't seriously believe you are suggesting removing the entire storms section. Jdorje 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The storms section is far from just menial info, Jdorje. That intentionally naive comment borders on rude. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not naive or rude; it's a reference to the "thread" several pages up where we had this exact same argument, you said to remove the menial details, and I responded by saying the menial details comprise the entirety of the storms section. (No, that doesn't mean none of the storms section is notable, but all of the notable information should already be duplicated somewhere else under the old system.) (Seriously, this argument has covered dozens of "threads" over a vast space of talk page...it is very hard to reconstruct the order of the discussion.) Jdorje 04:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, let's keep this civil please. NSLE (T+C) 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article, why don't?

I think this article is great and full of content. I have been "watching" thus article since the beggining of the season, and I have notice its evolution. It finally has all storm pictures; because at the middle of the season, someone eliminated almost all of them, and the article saw pretty incomplete. But for now... great work. Keep making Wikipedia one of the most complete encyclopedias of the world. In this edition, almost reaches the millionth article. Once agian congratulations. juan andrés 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I hope that one day this article gets to FA, when the discussions about separate storm articles and whatnot die down a bit. Thankfully, it's the off-season (and about time too) so fixings-up and so on will hopefully get done before we have any more Atlantic hurricanes to contend with. With a little work, we can get this to FA status. -- Sarsaparilla39 09:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good pictures

Hurricane Hut has some pretty good pictures of Franklin, José, and Ophelia. Should we use them (if they are copyrighted, we can just ask Weatherman90 if we can use them).Icelandic Hurricane 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, there's no "if" there. They are copyrighted. You have to ask weatherman90 not just if we can use them but if he is willing to release them under the GFDL. Or find the sources for the images (weatherman90 doesn't have his own personal satellite, he must be getting the images from somewhere - possibly he is taking them without permission, but we cannot do so). Jdorje 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sections needing work

Several of the sections of the current article are expansions of portions of the old "Season summary" section, which was horribly, woefully incomplete (but I won't get started on that). As such they need some work to be fleshed out more: particularly the deaths and damages section and the economic impact section. I'm not particularly wedded to the current or any other organizational format; it is just an incremental improvement of the old format which was decidedly inferior. Jdorje 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ref name=""

In a couple places in the article there are references with a name attribute: <ref name="...">. This seems to confuse the numbering system in the references section, which I don't quite understand. Is there a reason to use the name attribute? Jdorje 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be used if the reference is going to be used more than once in the same article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If more than one part of the article uses the same reference, you don't need to duplicate that footnote (just link to the same footnote several times in the article). That's done by labelling the first footnote with a name (<ref name="..."></ref>), and then just recalling that name afterwards (<ref name="..."/> no end tag). I don't think it's messing up the footnote numbering, though it does go out of order within the article itself because you start referring to previous numbers.
(I just noticed the Hurricane FAQ footnotes might look too similar but are different, so maybe they should be differentiated.) --AySz88^-^ 06:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It messes up the numbering in that the numbers used in the links no longer match the numbers given in the list. The links still work however. Jdorje 08:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Stan

In the Hurricane Stan death toll, Guatemala stands at 1,400 and the total is 1,153+ so shouldn't somebody change the deth toll total? Fishhead 12:18 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The NHC says most of those deaths might not have been directly from Stan, but rather from a pre-cursor system that brought the rain. That might change in the final report, but the monthly report says Stan was only responsible for around 80 deaths... still a lot, but nowhere near its supposed total. Hurricanehink 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually the NHC says most of those deaths were not directly or indirectly from stan. But we're having a little bit of trouble believing them, so we always add little disclaimers about the extra rains. Jdorje 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 Lightning

Yesterday, Slashdot linked to an article[1] about the unusual amount of lightning in this season's storms. Any thoughts on this article? Rylan42 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, but I don't think we can really have any sort of objective evidence for that. If true, it may have to do with the warmer waters this year in general as warmer water is a better conductor of electricity IIRC. - Blake's Star 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Just at a guess, I'd imagine it has to do with rapid intensification. They say lightning is caused by vertical motion of air, and intensification of hurricanes is caused by (usually slow) rising of air in the eye. Jdorje 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

TD 19

The report for Tropical Depression 19, the least notable storm of the season, is out. 200.119.236.205 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It gets its second moment in the spotlight - it formed with nothing else active, and dissipated with what would become Stan still a tropical depression. There isn't much to say about 19, although the storm history that I wrote in the article seems longer than that report. CrazyC83 04:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that report. Short and sweet. - Cuivienen 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that's even shorter than what the original season page had... Jdorje 05:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Jose

The report for Tropical Storm Jose is out. [2] Peak winds increased to 60 mph. CrazyC83 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No suprise there. If this storm would have formed a bit further out at sea, it could have become a monster very rapidly. bob rulz 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Had it had even 6 more hours, it would have become a hurricane, and within 24 hours, likely a major hurricane. CrazyC83 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Is it me or did a lot of the storms this season tended to grow more rapidly then most storms. Look at Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. God forbid if Jose did have the time and space he needed. I wouldn't want to see that storm. I think we can handly so much intense storms. tdwuhs

Agreed - fortunately, he did not have the time that those five monsters did...we would have been talking about a Category 3 or 4 Hurricane Jose in no time (and repeated devastation in central Mexico - compounding Emily). CrazyC83 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After Greek letters naming

The main article says "It is also worth noting that there are, apparently, no provisions for naming tropical cyclones after the letters of the Greek Alphabet are exhausted."

Why, pray tell, is it worth noting? The most active season in history, got six deep into a secondary list that is 24 names long! There's no reason to think we'd get close to exhausting the Greek Alphabet. With all the debate about the article being too long and containing too much irrelevant info, I don't see why this line should be kept. It's definitely less relevant than something like "Tropical depression 19 formed from a tropical wave 15 miles east of x island," since that's actually something that happened during the season, not hypothetical speculation.

--PK9 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not worth noting. Jdorje 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It is probably not worth noting that it "is worth noting", but it is (was?) probably only worth noting because we got asked so often and people seemed to want to know. --AySz88^-^ 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
They only asked because the season was still active; now that it's over they won't ask anymore (I suspect). Jdorje 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It is possible to exhaust the list. If we retire one Greek letter per year, in 24 years there will be no backup provisions. Beta still might be off the list for this year. Good kitty 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a moot discussion. According to an entry at the WMO News site, a new backup list will be agreed to when the Atlantic basin countries meet in March to consider which names to retire. So hopefully this will be the last use of the Greek Alphabet for naming storms. --EMS | Talk 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

References

I've just noticed that the new format falls far short of having sufficient references. This isn't a problem for the format per se, but it does need to be addressed. We need a citation for the basic information about each storm, something about the economic impact, etc. These should be the final storm reports for those storms that already have them released. The rest, I suppose, can wait for references until their reports are released. - Cuivienen 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem in the format, it's a problem in my writing ;-). I didn't add references when I wrote it. However in the writing of a summary, is it sufficient for the summary to refer to another article which itself has the references? Everything I wrote in the new storms section comes from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms and the individual storm articles (many of which are themselves poorly referenced). Jdorje 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict; why do we keep edit-conflicting, Jdorje?) One of the examples I saw used other articles as references, and then they had the appropriate external references. Here, one might use the child articles as references, and then put external references in the individual articles. I'm not sure if that's accepted, though. --AySz88^-^ 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, I copied from the storms page that Irene was the second Cape Verde-type hurricane of the season. What was the first? Jdorje 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Emily Jamie C 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilma's Report

It's out: PDF Word --Ajm81 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Officially increased from 175 to 185 mph - and rightfully so. Landfalls all adjusted slightly as well. They also mention that 882 mb may not have been the minimum pressure; I would have brought it down a bit more to 878-880. CrazyC83 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FA Nomination?

As you can see at the top of this page, the article is A Class. Well done for making it this far! However, is anybody going to nominate the article at the featured article nomination page? M cappeluti

This can only reach FA status after all the final reports come in and we have stable, definite information. CrazyC83 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the only reason it's A class is because I decided that B class was an unfair designation for such a thorough and complete article (and because it qualifies as A class by the description - it's much better than most FACs!). - Cuivienen 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SubTD 22 and TD 10 Reports

Twenty-two's report is out. PDF; Word. It was not born from the remnants of TD 19. Max winds while subtropical 30 kts.

TD Ten's report is also out. PDF; Word. Max winds 30 kts.

—BazookaJoe 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean that the reports are "abbreviated"? 200.119.236.241 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume it means the storms were not "worthy" enough to receive a full report. They were very weak storms and didn't affect land. --tomf688{talk} 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
But the report on the even less worthy TD19 is not "abbreviated".
Perhaps there is more to be written? CrazyC83 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If Twenty-two hadn't become extratropical, it would have been Subtropical Storm Wilma (and everything else would have backed up one) based on its 45 mph "real" peak intensity... CrazyC83 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_20&oldid=1133810304"