Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Bold?

Being bold is nice, but really, shouldn't this have been discussed first? --Golbez 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Because, IMO, it's horrid, but let's hear others! --Golbez 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! What is that?!?! This is what starts edit wars. Who cares if it is too long? I would sooner support articles for each storm, but this is too much. Listing by month? I'm sorry, but I see no sense to that. This should be changed back. Hurricanehink 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric told me to delete the tedious information. The tedious information is the entire storms section. Nobody disagreed when I said Tropical Storm Lee needed only a single sentence, not a whole section. I don't care about the by-month summary style, but I do feel strongly (and nobody has given a counter argument, except Golbez who just says 80k is not too long) that the storms section needs to be removed and the important information merged into the so-called season summary. I thought we agreed on this above? Jdorje 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not FA material without the storm synopses. --Golbez 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is exactly the opposite. Without cutting down the storm synopsys by at least 50% (impossible under the old design because nobody can bear to delete these details and there's nowhere else to move them), it is not FA material with the synopsis because it is too full of useless meteorological details. Wikipedia is not paper; it is quite all right to summarize information that is covered in more detail in child articles. Jdorje 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the (very) contrary. 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. --AySz88^-^ 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, that info is just as "useless" as tons of info in other articles, some of which became FA. bob rulz 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that a monthly summary is the way to go. The Storms section needed to be shortened, but there should be at least a passing mention of each storm in this article. Deeper detail can be placed on the Storms article, or in each storm's individual article, depending on what we decide. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Aren't all the storms mentioned currently? :/ I agree there needs to be a mention each. --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what the hell? This is stupid. I agree with Golbez and think that all this nonsence should be reverted. Who thought this was a good idea? And why didn't they bother even mentioning it here? I am VERY opposed to this change. AySz, you are taking this summery style way too far. You are going against the way all the other hurricane season pages are formatted back for a WAYS. And those other pages should remain the way they are...period. You may think it was too long, I happen to disagree and I think this is creating more problems than answers. The main article is no longer a "main" article anymore. It is secondary to all of these subpages that you guys have created. Am I the only person who sees how that is a very bad thing? This change shows a severe lack of discretion. Big, sweeping changes should be discussed and objections settled. My objections and the objections of others were not settled, they were refuted and ignored. I completely agree with Tito. All storms should be summerized on the main page. That is summery style. What we had was summery style. It's just that we were summerizing a lot of stuff. I never considered the length an issue and still don't. Each storm needs to have its own section giving at least a summery of its history. If that goes against summery style, or your version of it, so what? That is what this article should be. It was never outrageously long. If it's less than 100KB, I have no problem with it so long as it is as good as it could be and shortening would compromise that. I will NEVER agree to a change on this scale. Never. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Try reading through it again - the effects of each storm are briefly summarized. Most of the storms of the season caused so little damage that more than one or two sentences is too much to devote to them in the main article. Those that did nothing at all only need to have dates assigned. Each storm is covered in a level detail based on how significant they were - Katrina has a paragraph while Franklin, Harvey and Irene get one sentence total. That makes sense. - Cuivienen 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) {{Infobox hurricane small |name=Hurricane Wilma |category=cat5 |image=Wilma2005-colorIR.GIF |track=Wilma 2005 track.png |formed=[[October 18]] |dissipated=[[October 24]] |highest winds=175 mph |lowest pressure=882 mbar }} ::::: Well, one thing we could do is to chug the meteorological data into a infobox. Here's an example for Wilma, with sample code: [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 05:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) <pre>{{Infobox hurricane small |name=Hurricane Wilma |category=cat5 |image=Wilma2005-colorIR.GIF |track=Wilma 2005 track.png |formed=[[October 18]] |dissipated=[[October 24]] |highest winds=175 mph |lowest pressure=882 mbar }}</pre>

I personally feel the article has been greatly improved. I've been gone for a week or so due to surgery, and I returned pleasantly surprised. It looks more like an article and less like a list. My two cents. --tomf688{talk} 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and no information was lost, just moved. That was my biggest problem with other ideas involved with improving the article, but that issue seems to have been addressed. Furthermore, the article now deals with the season federally, rather than confederally. So, to sum up... me likey. --tomf688{talk} 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article has been severely descecrated and want to see the storms section restored. Removing the storms section from the article is like removing the heart from a human being. You desperately need a synopis of each storm like Golbez said. Otherwise, the article would fail to discuss the topic in detail. Isn't that the goal: thoroughly discussing the topic without getting tedious? Apparently not and others think that just a brief run-down is best with the main info in corner somewhere. Tom, it was discussed federally before this drastic change. Having articles for each storm and leaving the main article a pitiful litte skeleton is discussing it confederally and I am strongly opposed to that. I almost feel like this article has been vandalized and it makes me sad to see it like this. It is a pitifully organized and incomplete shadow of what it once was. This looks nothing close to an FA. It isn't even the same universe. To say it's B-Class is generous and I will do everything in my power to have the storms section restored. This is unbelieveable. I'm utterly disgusted. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
People reading about this season want a synopsis, not a full detailed report about each storm; the page before was unreadable and far too long. I also still believe storms should have their own articles to limit the technical details there. --tomf688{talk} 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Creating articles for each storm wouldn't limit technical details, it would just move them. This article was very readable. Look at some of the featured articles. Many are as long if not longer than this article was before it was changed. A good article should be judged by how extensive it is, not by how long. This one was just a big topic. This is a terrible solution to that. The article has an intense sence of incompleteness about it now. I am a big advocate of the storms section. Hink and I spent a lot of time back in the good old days developing that concept. Now you want to take it away for this and all future seasons? That's not the way to go. We DO need an extensive report on the subject. This is an encyclopdia, I don't care what kind. And encyclopedias are supposed to discuss their topics in detail. That's the way things have always been done on Wikipedia. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Storms

I have to bring this issue up again. Now somebody's gone and replaced all of the storm descriptions and placed a general overview of each of the months instead? Without the storms there would be no season! You've just removed all of what the season is! The storms make the season, and the season is made up of the storms. Removing this from the article removes everything that the season is. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the problem is the "records" thing at the bottom. All of that information is covered in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics page. We should keep it in there, but cut down on it significantly. Do not sacrfice the information that makes up the season for other information that makes the season unique. bob rulz 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No information is deleted. All of the original information is in the daughter article, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms. And every storm is mentioned in the storms summary. I agree with you that the storms make up the season, but the season is more than just a list of storms. And I also agree with you about the records section (simply adding section headers to some parts of the old season summary section revealed the records section duplicates it heavily). Jdorje 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The new format is quite elegant. I like it; it removes the need to have descriptions of each storm while still covering what needs to be covered in the season. The effects of Tropical Storm Arlene are not what makes the up the season, what makes up the season are all of the storms together as described in the month-based sections. - Cuivienen 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I love the new format. I'm glad you (Jdorje) were willing to be very bold, and maybe others will see what was really meant now. --AySz88^-^ 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
My point is is that the season is made up of storms, and now only maybe 1/4 of the article is used describing the storms now. The majority of the article is now describing what was unique about the season. The season does not primarily consist of unique things, it primarily consists of the storms. In addition, what Tropical Storm Arlene did doesn't make up the season, but it certainly is important to the season. Every storm makes its contribution to the season, and every storm should receive due mention in the article (more than just in passing). bob rulz 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Golbez brought up a good point above, stated simply in one sentence. This article is not FA material without the storm synopses. bob rulz 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
But you didn't refute my counter-point, also stated in once sentence. This article is not FA material with the storm synopses. Jdorje 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You fail to explain why this is true. The effects of TS Arlene are not relevant to the overall season. The overall effects of the season are relevant to the overall season. The new format of the article covers all relevant parts of the season in summary style. Please don't resist change simply because it is change. - Cuivienen 13:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And don't jump to conclusions that this is why I think it shouldn't be like that. What Tropical Storm Arlene did is relevant to the overall season, because the storms make up the season. Apparently this is a matter of opinion, because neither of us seems to be able to explain it better than we already have. I guess that's why there's a straw poll below. bob rulz 16:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that what Arlene did is relevant to the overall season. I just don't think it takes three paragraphs to cover what it did. It should take, at most, three sentences. Anything else is unnecessary detail. However in the old format, there is no way to shorten the arlene section without simply deleting it all, because there is no place to move the extra information. Eric told me to shorten it, and I didn't think deleting the information was appropriate, so I just archived the entire storms section in a sub-article. Another change I made though was to separate the meteorological history with the impact of the storms. Arlene gets a brief mention in the meteorological history (probably it should have a whole sentence here; it can certainly be expanded). It also gets a brief mention in the impact section. The exact amount of information to be included certainly needs to be tweaked, but the important point is that we do not need the unnecessary details of knowing that Arlene defied wind shear or that it persisted into Canada. Jdorje 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the idea of separating the meteorological history from the impact was based on the old Season summary section. However, if I'd realized when I started how terrible the Season summary was I probably would not have bothered. This isn't something I did because I strongly think the article needs it, I only did it because that's the way the text was already structured. It would also be fine to merge the impact back into the storms section; however, even so most storms should only get about two sentences description and do not need separate sections. Jdorje 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Current article distribution on my browser:

  • 17 pages total
  • < 1 page - introduction and infobox
  • 0.5 pages - ToC
  • 1.3 pages - season forecasts
  • 2.5 pages - storm histories (storms)
  • 1.5 pages - storm impacts (deaths and damages)
  • 0.3 pages - intense storms
  • 0.4 pages - forecasting uncertainty
  • 0.4 pages - number of storms
  • 0.4 pages - economic impact
  • 4.5 pages - "records"
  • 1.2 pages - storm names
  • 1.5 pages - links

Conclusion: the records section is too long. Of course we knew this before. The records should be shortened to 1-2 pages (including the intense storms and number of storms, which belong in there). The storm impacts and economic impact sections should be lengthened; there is lots of interesting information to write there. I also believe the season forecasts take up way too much room, but I'm not sure what to do with them. Jdorje 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am more inclined to believe that the other sections are too short than to believe the records section is too long. --tomf688{talk} 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is incomplete with out a storms section. In fact, I want to put it up for peer review and see which one the community likes better. I will never stand for this or any of the hurricane season articles being formatted like this. The heart of the article, the storms section, was hanously ripped out and dumped somewhere else. I am utterly disgusted by this. I will stop at nothing to get the storms section back. It is not and will not be an FA without it...period. This is as bad as any vandal action. This article has been ruined. So many facts are missing. Jdorje's ridiculous comment that the entire storms section is non-notable is just sickening. I said remove all the tedious details and he did this. I take that as a personal affront. This is an infuriating descecration of this article and I have zero tolerance for this kind of contemptuous, high-and-mighty change. Jdorje, I gave you a barnstar and now you do this?! I feel betrayed, ignored, and enraged. This change CANNOT stand. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Peer review sounds like a good idea. It would bring in a larger neutral audience... some people are a bit hardcore around this page. --tomf688{talk} 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Eric, let's see where we stand. Do you or do you not agree with each of the following statements? For reference, the version before I started making changes can be found here.

  1. The season article should be sufficiently interesting for a layman to read straight through.
  2. The notable information for Arlene can be summarized in three (well, 2-4) sentences.
  3. If there are only 3 sentences in the season article on Arlene, then extra information about Arlene, useful only for reference, should be included in Wikipedia (versus, extra information being only available through external links).
  4. If there are only 3 sentences in the season article on Arlene, it deserve to have its own section heading within the season article.
  5. The old "Season summary" section was a sufficient synopsis.
  6. The new "Impact" section is good; regardless of what level of detail the storms section has.
  7. The "Records" section is better at its current length/level of detail than it was before.
  8. Sections "Economic activity" and "Forecasting uncertainty" deserve to exist (not necessarily at the top level).

My own opinion: (1) absolutely (strong yes); (2) absolutely; (3) weak yes (4) weak no; (5) absolutely not; (6) yes; (7) yes; (8) yes. Jdorje 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1 - yes, depending on your definition of layman. 2 - yes. 3 - yes. 4 - weak no, too much emphysis on one storm. 5 - weak no, some useful info was missing, all it was intended for was to give a synopsis of the most notable events of the season, not everything that happened during the season, that's what the storms section is for. 6 - no, if that storms section is reinstated, which I strongly advocate, then that section is going to have to be cut down to a brief summery or removed all together. The storms section would and should serve that purpose on a more specific basis. 7 - strong no, several facts and records are missing, including a whole section I added about the continuous activity that took place during the season. 8 - economic activity: no, forecasting uncertainty: weak yes, much shorter section though.
  • 9. The Storms section should exist in the main article: massive yes, that is the heart of the article, it has to exist. Removing it, regardless of final deposition, for a tiny length issue is like removing a person's lungs to fix lung cancer. It's that ridiculous. It was the most valuable part of the article in my opinion. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW Eric, the section about continous activity I moved to the statistics page. I did this because it is not a record (it was in the records section) and, although interesting, it will not mean much to most people (except for the last sentence about near-record activity in every month, it doesn't even mean much to me because I don't know how that compares to regular seasons). Jdorje 05:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(9) yes - of course we have a storms section now, you may notice; it just doesn't have the level of detail you want. But the storms page also doesn't have the correct level (it has too much detail), so the compromise lies somewhere in the middle.

  • 10. If Arlene has 3 sentences in the main article, and extra detail is included somewhere else within wikipedia, then this should go in a separate Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) article.
  • 11. If Arlene has 3 sentences in the main article, and extra detail is included somewhere else within wikipedia, then this should go in a conglomeration article like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms.

10 and 11 aren't exactly opposites since I suppose there's some other choice, but I don't know what it is. Anyway (10) yes, (11) no. Jdorje 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The storms section is fine, it just needs to be in the main article. See here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones page:
"Season articles should include an overall summary plus a short summary for each storm, with a link to the storm page where appropriate. See 2004 Atlantic hurricane season for an example. If a storm's summary becomes too long it may be moved into a separate article."
And it should be in the main article too, not on a subpage. This is approved WikiProject policy, based on consensus. This change violates it and that makes it grounds for a revert. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric, your argument is flawed. (1) You just agreed 3 sentences was about right for Arlene; now you say 12 sentences is fine? (2) There already is a short summary for each storm. It's in the storms section. Your argument is that it is too short. But it is about the same as 95% of the Atlantic hurricane season articles (i.e., everything before 1995, or just to pick one at random 1947 Atlantic hurricane season), and thus consistent with wikiproject standards. Jdorje 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you completely E Brown. However, since people seem to be unhappy with the length of the Arlene summary, I suggest that we restore the Tropical Storm Arlene page that we had previously. I also agree that if we merge the storms section back into the article (which should be done) that some of the summaries should be shortened a little bit. bob rulz 01:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If by "a little bit", you mean cut down 50% or more, then I agree with you. That was exactly the purpose of the split. Jdorje 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to admit it, but I don't hate the main page. In fact, I kind of like it. Sorry Eric, but this does get rid of those menial details you and I hate. Hurricanehink 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

@Eric I was under the impression that you were more anti-detail on these storms. I personally think that's a good approach for this article, but that the details should remain accessible in individual articles to anyone who wants them without having to interpret the met-speak from the NHC. --tomf688{talk} 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am currently expanding the storms section to include one paragraph per storm. Most storms get about 3 sentences. Lee gets 1 sentence; Katrina gets about 8. I re-instated the monthly section titles. Based on the above discussion I hope this is something Eric can live with as the storms section. It remains to be seen what will happen to the impact section; I think it is quite nice to have an aggregate of deaths and damages by region, although this does duplicate information already provided in the storms section. Jdorje 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys clearly have a different definition of tedious than mine. "Epsilon baffled NHC forecasters" is detail; "Dr. Lixion Avilia said 'blah blah blah' because 'blah blah blah'" is too tedious for the main article. The name of the truck driver whose truck was in that picure of post-Ivan I-10 is not notable for any article. I'm not against detail, I just think that there is a point beyond which it gets tedious. This new change is certainly an improvement over the original change, but there was nowhere to go but up. I still like the old version with the storms section best. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Straw poll

  • Individual articles for each storm
  1. CrazyC83 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) as I had previously written
  2. --AySz88^-^ 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (but a single article is basically fair enough)
  3. Good kitty 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jdorje
  5. 143.231.249.141 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.202.230 (talk • contribs) .
  7. Ajm81 18:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weatherman90 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Separate, single article for all storms
  1. Cuivienen 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (plus separate articles where necessary - all those currently separate)
  2. Blake's Star 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mark J 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. tomf688{talk} 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) - This format, which is the current one we are using I assume, is much more appropriate for an encyclopedia article; information is summed up in prose and not lists/headings. Also, the article length is more reasonable, the season is dealt with as a whole, and no information is lost... just moved.
  5. Spiffy sperry 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) This, or merging them back and really shortening the prose, using {{infobox hurricane small}} liberally. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge storms back into article
  1. NSLE (T+C) 04:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. bob rulz 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --24.83.100.214 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jamie C 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hurricanehink 16:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Good kitty 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. 200.119.236.205 18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (User's only edit - Blake's Star 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
    That makes no difference as this is a straw poll, not a vote (like on AFD or RFA). NSLE (T+C) 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    In my opinion that should be taken into account - an anonymous user that came onto Wikipedia only to vote in a "straw poll" is more than worthy of suspicion as a sockpuppet. - Cuivienen 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am sorry. I thought the fact that it was a straw poll meant anonymous users could vote. For what its worth, I'm not a sockpuppet, and you can ignore my vote if anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Note, however, that other anonymous users have voted too. 200.119.236.205 15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, you're perfectly allowed to vote as an anonymous user although making an account is encouraged. It's a significant problem for users to use different IPs or create new accounts specifically to stack votes, however, so any vote as a first edit should be considered suspicious. Not your fault. - Blake's Star 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Awolf002 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Pikachu90000 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. -- Sarsaparilla39 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. JVG 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. The time for voting is over, do it already. --Golbez 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The voting is definately inconclusive — it would be 13 to 13, assuming, I think justifiably, that those voting for "separate, single" would rather support "single combined" than "merge". There's definately no consensus for any of the three. Also, this is a straw poll. --AySz88^-^ 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

...isn't it a little early for this? I don't think it's even been a day. --AySz88^-^ 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 2 hours since I posted my original argument, but talk to NSLE about that, he made it. bob rulz 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Bring them back. There was too much detail before. Just condense sentences, make it easier. You don't need three medium-sized sentences when one sentence could say the same thing. No information is deleted, just condensed for easier reading.
To be blunt, I think the ideas of articles for each storm and the recent change just suck; for the reasons I've stated time and time again. I don't need to repeat them. This is giving me a headache. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This split is not the solution! Awolf002 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeez guys! You spelled "separate" wrong!Icelandic Hurricane 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed that. - Blake's Star 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just glanced back at this page to see how post-season edits were coming along, and I must say that I like the nez format very much. Please keep it! I agree with Jdorje and Cuivienen that detailed descriptions of each individual storm's strength and impact is not necessary, just an overarching explanation of the impact of the season and a brief mention of the storms. Every storm is mentioend in the article, and the important ones (Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma) all have enough information. We don't need to know Dennis's minimum pressure or Jose's economic impact to understand the season. Blake's Star 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I listed this under the RfC section for surveys and straw polls, to try to get more people to give their opinion. --AySz88^-^ 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not sure how effective this poll actually is, since the article has been consistently edited (and is now much better and much more detailed than the way it was when I voted) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The poll didn't really accomplish anything; only 50% want the storms section moved back into the article. Hardly a consensus. --tomf688{talk} 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The shortened storms section is at User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season for the moment. Jdorje


Straw poll #2

I believe the above straw poll is flawed because it attaches great importance to the inclusion of a "storms section", when in actuality the debate is not about the existence of such a section but about the level of detail it should have. The article has always had a storms section. Once we decide how much detail that section should go into, then we can decide other issues like what the other sections in the article should cover and whether/where more information about each storm can be found. Jdorje 08:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I added in the approximate total lengths of each format. This is in "pages", each being one page on my browser. Jdorje 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a note for those who haven't been following the debate - no information is added/lost by any of these changes, the debate is about if there should be a daughter article or daughter articles for each storm (current pages on Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, etc. would be kept no matter what the outcome of the vote). - Cuivienen 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Which makes it all the more confusing. I thought we were losing information from the less-notable storms... CrazyC83 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The information is lost from the main page, but with the use of child pages the end result should be that we can include more information on less-notable storms that we used to have. If we use 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, the individual storm sections can just be extended. Or if we use per-storm articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005), even more information can be included there. Jdorje 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • ~1 sentence per storm, ~2 paragraphs per month, ~2 pages total, as in this edit
  1. Cuivienen 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (except when otherwise merited - the major storms)
  • ~3 sentences per storm, 1 paragraph per storm, ~5 pages total, as in this edit (whether to have section headings is still up for debate)
  1. Jdorje 08:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Good kitty 15:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sarsaparilla39 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --AySz88^-^ 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. PaulC/T+ 07:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cuivienen 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Blake's Star 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. 168.229.26.182 16:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. 143.231.249.141 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --EMS | Talk 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC) With the storms described in more detail in a related article, this is the right length. The by-month subsection headings also work well.
  • ~10 sentences per storm, 2-3 paragraphs per storm, ~17 pages total, as in this edit
  1. Patteroast 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jamie C 13:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. CrazyC83 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (for storms not on separate pages)
  4. 24.85.167.241 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (Please note that I'm the same person as 24.83.100.214)
    Just wondering - does that assume that the "storms" page is deleted? Because they all have 10 sentences there. - Cuivienen 17:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    10 sentences per storm is equivalent to returning the entire storms page into the main article, yes. Jdorje 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    I was asking CrazyC83 because he seemed to be in support of the recent changes and is now voting to revert. - Cuivienen 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    I support the current layout as a #2 option. But my first preference would be to eliminate the storms page and put them all back onto separate articles. CrazyC83 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Then you should realize that this poll refers only to the main page and not to various storm pages - you are currently voting to restore the old style with a few pages for specific storms but the bulk of the information within the 2005 article. - Cuivienen 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. A435(m) 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Polaris999 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. M cappeluti 58.178.215.222 (talk · contribs) If this move makes this article into a featured article, then i'm in! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.215.222 (talk • contribs) 10:04, January 18, 2006 (UTC).
    • This vote has nothing to do with FA vstatus - some on the "long" side say that without exhaustive descriptions of the storms the article is not FA quality, but those claims are merely tehir own opinions. In any case, with the descriptions of the storms, the article is far too long to ever become an FA (30k is the suggested maximum length; with the descriptions the article was ~75k) and would likely be rejected on FAC for being too wordy. - Cuivienen 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Golbez response

  1. Crikey, people, can't we just do it the way we did without making a rule for every single aspect? This is rapidly attaining the stench of rulecruft, and it's time I was bold about it. --Golbez 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What rules? These are straw polls intended to get an idea of whether or not there's a consensus because people are disagreeing. As far as I know, we're probably still discussing until we get some sort of agreement and understanding. It's not "rulecruft" since we aren't really making some sort of rule, and even if people were making some sort of rule, there's would be a need for a rule because people aren't agreeing that such-and-such is obvious. --AySz88^-^ 04:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"Should we have ONE paragraph, or TWO?" I'd rather just pick what works best for the particular section, rather than put it to a vote. Consensus != polls. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
But with so much disagreement, how do we know whether there's a consensus without the poll? --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I have the feeling you might be violating WP:POINT with that latest edit, since I think it's clear that we're still discussing. --AySz88^-^ 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Just like we were still discussing the size of the article, etc? Jdorje was bold, so was I. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
People take the definition of WP:POINT far too literally. Many of the statements that I have seen recently that people have said is violating this policy (which technically isn't a policy anyway) have taken it to the extreme and have expanded the definition to create "policy" that is not outlined on the WP:POINT article. People have stretched its definition much too far. bob rulz 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. None of the edits have gone against that guideline; looking at the "guideline in a nutshell" and the examples should make that clear. Jdorje 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now that I've thought about it some more, that didn't assume good faith, so I'm sorry for that, Golbez. (To explain: at first, I thought Golbez was trying to parody Jdorje's bold change, which would be covered under WP:POINT and is why I brought that up.) --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you guys are trying to monopolize the article. Your removal of the storms section went against strong disagreement that you simply ignored. THAT is POV. Golbez's edit was no more wrong than Jdorje's. This is ridiculous hipocracy that has gotten out of hand. I want the storms section back. We are a handful of people who want the storms section back. Golbez acted for us. Just like you are a handful of people who want the storms section seperate. Jdorje acted for you. Why was Golbez's edit reverted and Jdorje's not. Because you didn't like the change? That's what I think. One word best describes this page. Can you spell: C-O-R-R-U-P-T? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I feel the length of the summary should reflect the severity of the storm. Lee gets one sentence, Katrina gets a five sentence paragraph, for example. --tomf688{talk} 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagreed. The storms not mentioned on any separate pages should be the most descriptive here, since we should have much of the details that would be on a separate article. Although if it gets too long, it could still be moved to a separate article... CrazyC83 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
CrazyC83, that violates the very concept of an encyclopedia which is to give the most weight to notable information; however, your argument does expose the flaws in the old system. My idea is that all storms get 1-8 sentences on the main page, with more in-depth coverage on a child page. In the current edit this child page is the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms page, though it's also possible (and more logical IMO) to have one page per storm. Jdorje 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course the basis of my idea was that the article remain as it is, with storms such as Katrina get more said while storms like Lee are just touched upon. That's just sensible considering how vastly different they were. The technical details belong in either individual articles on each storm, or on one big page like we have now (2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms). Leave it as is. --tomf688{talk} 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Err, do you mean how it is right now (~3 sentences per storm), how it was yesterday (~1 sentence per storm), or how it was 4 days ago (~10 sentences per storm)? Either way, I agree with you that we shouldn't go into more details on non-notable storms; we should instead give another location (either individual storm articles, one massive storms article, or links to TCRs) where additional information can be found. Jdorje 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify Tom, by 3 sentences per storm I mean on average. This means 1 sentence for Lee and 8 for Katrina (as in the link given). Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that storms like Katrina get enormous mention on their own articles - so we need to give mention and details elsewhere to the lesser storms, otherwise those who come here would think that very little transpired from them and they wouldn't know a storm history... CrazyC83 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There are three ways to do that: a storms page, one page per storm, or external links (to the TCRs). I basically agree with you that one page per storm is best, but a storms page is an acceptable compromise. However the purpose of this straw poll was to sidestep such an argument. The question isn't where the extra information should be put - the question was how much information should be given on the main article. Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Overall, I see this reorganization as being positive. It provides a quick summary of the season and leaves the greater detail elsewhere. At the least, do realize that if the storm sections are restored to this article that they must be shortenned, sometimes substantially. My rule-of-thumb would be 1-5 sentences in that case, with more storms (and possibly all named storms) having their own articles. (The issue on individual storm articles in not whether the suject is encyclopedic as much as it is whether there is enough encyclopedic data available to justify an article and the space requirements of the possible containing articles.)

I think that it also needs to be recognized that whatever scheme is implemented for this article will become the prototype/standard for future storm season articles/collections going forward. For that reason, I encourage people to brainstorm and debate this, so that when the 2006 season gets rolling we will know what kind of overall style we are building towards. --EMS | Talk 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So

Where are we on the argument over whether or not to have a separate storms article? I was out of town. Please tell me some headway was made. --Golbez 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote is 10-8 in favor of keeping the separate article - which means that we've made virtually no progress at all. - Cuivienen 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No headway is made, and I've nearly gotten to the point of leaving the hurricane season pages all together out of frustration. bob rulz 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Basically, there are no more arguments that can be made. Some believe that having 10 or more sentences per storm, with a 70k article, is better. Others believe that 3 sentences per storm, with a 35k article, is better. What more can be done to resolve the question? Jdorje 05:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? Consensus does not mean voting. Do it and see what works. I'm tired of arguing on the LENGTH of paragraphs. Just DO them. --Golbez 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's...what we did. But simply reverting between between the two versions will not help to resolve the argument. Jdorje 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
And the polls are pretty even. I don't think this issue will be resolved any time soon, and my confidence in the hurricane article community as a whole, has plunged. I remember when it was just me the 2004 people...that was nice. No conflicting interests, no technical rules, no arguments, just discussion and editing. bob rulz 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Why would it give you less confidence to know that people are considering (or at least trying to) the quality of the article as a whole, rather than simply editing "for the moment"? Jdorje 05:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, neither is voting. Next move? --Golbez 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:DR? Jdorje 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! Hurricanehink 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
We're really all on the same "side" here, we just disagree a bit.... In any case, I don't feel it should be a reason to lose confidence, and there aren't really any "conflicting interests" I think. --AySz88^-^ 06:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If people have such a problem with this, why hasn't there been a peer review or request for comment put up? --tomf688{talk} 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There's been an RfC up for over a week (see WP:CS). - Cuivienen 02:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, THAT'S where it is. Please stop calling that an RFC, since it's not listed on any subpage of WP:RFC. That confused me. --Golbez 04:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, WP:CS actually is listed as a section under WP:RFC, at General convention and policy issues, though it's not literally a /subpage. Maybe that needs to be changed somehow ("See also: Current Surveys"?) so it's not so confusing. --AySz88^-^ 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Bob. I am filled with nostalgia for the 'old days', when it was just a handful of us working together to reach a common goal: the expansion of the hurricane season articles. In the beginning, it was mainly seven hurricane geeks creating and improving the seasonal articles (plus a few notable others): Golbez and Cyrius, resident administrators; and main contributors Bob rulz, Hurricanehink, Jdorje, RattleMan and myself. Now the frequenting population has tripled and the tight sense of community around here has been lost. When it was just the seven-ten or twelve of us, there weren't many, if any, squabbles. Since then, there have been several heated arguements. I think that a small group of people here have become corrupt (intentionally or unintentionally) and Jdorje heads the pack with AySz88 close behind. You guys have good intentions, but seem to be very headstrong. You proposed sweeping changes, recieved firm opposition but ignored it and made the change anyway. This enraged me to the point of a near-fit. I think part of the problem is that there is a deep sence of tradition in many of us veterans (mainly Hink, Bob, Golbez and myself). Hink pioneered the concept of a storms section and expanded them back several decades. Formats that we designed and built up stood for months. Many still stand. The storms section is a traditon that has been around a while, and I've always thought it was a good idea to break down the articles like that. This incessant squabbling has run off three valuable contributors, plus several others. Cyrius left first, followed by Rattleman then Holderca1 left. They have been replaced by rather imperious figures (*cough*AySz*cough*). I often go back to the 2004AHS archives to escape from the chaos and stress on this page. What happened to the days when cool-headedness prevailed? I miss 'em :(. I don't want this place to turn into Jerusulam, where the fighting never stops. The way the article is now is much improved from when the storms section was first removed, but it's still not as good as it was before the change. I will always strongly and passionatly support the use of the storms section in this, past, and future hurricane season articles. But if agreeing to the way it is now is the only way to bring peace, I'll consent. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still here :D I just...don't want to get involved in all this argueing. I don't want to take sides in this situation, so don't ask me to take part in all the polls. I too sort of long for the "good old times", though this "day and age" can be fun and interesting in its own ways. Cyrius originally left for a while primarily because Rita came up and "smacked him around" (as in "watch it come up and smack me around", an old quote Cyrius made about Emily :D). Maybe now he feels the way that Eric describes above. In response to the "viewing old archives bit" (I'm jumping around topics here :D), I often do that too. I like to see what we talked about way back then. I also go back into this year's discussion archives (sometimes even using Wikipedia's History function to see how it was laid out then), and the archives of the storm articles from like, June 1st, 2005. (jump) I love archiving things and searching through other people's archives (I've even gone through a ton of the NRL's archive!) On my search for archives, I found an early copy of 1995 AHS before there was any real format (possibly the earliest/first "season" article ever), see here, (and here for an early Wiki copy)...Oh wait, I'm rambling on... -- RattleMan 04:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric: (1) why would anything that happens on wikipedia enrage you? (2) You keep talking about "bringing the storms section back", but you may notice that the current article does have a storms section, and it still has more detail on each storm than 95% of the AHS articles. This highlights the true problem that brings about this controversy: with more editors working on the "current" season articles, each storm now has more detail than it used to and in many cases more detail than is good for it. Leave the article alone and it does nothing but grow. Yet it is important for a good article to remain focused, and there is a reason why there's a suggested maximum length for articles. If an article (like Hurricane Katrina) gets too big, nobody will read it through anymore and it becomes useful only on a per-section basis, as a reference. This is something we need to avoid if we are to make FA-class articles. If too much data is available, we need to find better ways to organize it so that the most notable information comes to the top. Jdorje 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric, your argument seems to consist entirely of: "There are a few editors I approve of, and, in the end, they should be the only ones editing the page." The fact is, there are plenty of other people on Wikipedia who are perfectly able to contribute, and you really have no right to say that their edits are inferior either because you have been here longer or because you have admins "on your side" if you want to make sides. Your argument can be entirely refuted by WP:BITE, and, frankly, I'm surprised that you are so intolerant of views beyond your own narrow range. You resort to claiming that other users act in an imperious fashion when you yourself are "imperiously" attempting to claim that only a small cadre of users have opinions that count. - Cuivienen 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, Eric, your response was very incivil. My thoughts on this are no one has ownership of articles, and no one particular way of presenting an article is correct. Consensus is always the most important thing, however here there is no clear-cut one. An RFC, or similar, should be put underway, leave the page as such until more opinions on it can be assessed. Until an agreement is reached, if anyone changes anything, it will be blatantly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. NSLE (T+C) 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"There are a few editors I approve of, and, in the end, they should be the only ones editing the page." No, that is not and has never been my view. I was just saying that things seemed to go more smoothly when there was fewer people. The statement about a few of the newcomers being imperious was the only thing in that entire post that could possibly have been interprited as derogotory. And that wasn't meant as a jab at anybody. I was expressing my opinion that I felt some users were behaving imperiously. They ignored or dismissed most if not all objections to the change and went ahead and did it. That's not what Wikipedia is all about and I found that action quite imperious and self-centered. "The fact is, there are plenty of other people on Wikipedia who are perfectly able to contribute, and you really have no right to say that their edits are inferior either because you have been here longer or because you have admins "on your side" if you want to make sides." I have NEVER thought otherwise. I'd really like it if you'd point out where I said other users' edits were inferior because my feelings are just the opposite. I don't have any admins on "my side". I listed those two admins because they were part of the original group. They would moderate discussions and make sure things didn't get out of hand. Such moderation is impossible now because of the amount of people we have. Back in the old days, there was a lot of cooperation between all the contributors. There isn't as much cooperation now. We spend way too much time arguing and acusing each other of this, that and the other and less time working to improve the pages. I am just a simple man yearning for quieter time. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 08:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric - that "simpler time" will probably never exist again for current-season articles. But it still exists for historical articles. We have 555 total tropical cyclone articles (by my count from a couple of days ago), and all but a few of them are badly in need of "just being edited". Jdorje 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"that "simpler time" will probably never exist again for current-season articles" That is sadly true. I'm just a little tired of the bickering. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I'll get over it, but I really like the way things used to be done. I hope that the historical articles (2004 back) will keep the format they have now, more or less. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I admit I haven't been in the argument much (if at all), and hope we can get along. Given the amount of information and newness, I am personally fine with how it is now, but promise, someone, that this won't happen again to older seasons. The simpler time is great for 2004 back articles, and hopefully those of us (including me) who don't like changes to the old system in new seasons can ignore it. I know I will. Eric, thanks for the mention... surprised to see my name. :) Hurricanehink 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the older articles are too long (2004 is close though), but some of them do have too much detail (like 2004 - do we really need a whole page on Bonnie?). Personally, I hope we get to the point where there is too much detail in the older articles and we have to worry about weeding it down. It means the article is basically complete in information, and all that's left is organizing the info properly. Jdorje 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think you're making this length thing a much bigger deal than it really is. If it's valuable information displayed in an organized manner, who cares. I think a broad limit should be placed. My definition of 'too long' is 100+KB. My definition of 'out of control' is 200+KB. 70KB is a good length in my opinion. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, E. Brown. 70k is a good article length for something that you can make very detailed. In addition, if this season had, say, 15-18 storms instead of 27, I don't think we would be arguing about length at all. We would be fine keeping the storms section how it was originally, and we wouldn't have all of these arguments about whether to split it off or not. If it was a shorter season, we wouldn't be arguing about this at all. My point is is that why should the rules be different just because the season was incredibly long? The rules would have stayed the same were the season shorter, so why do the rules suddenly have to change just because the season was the longest on record? bob rulz 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
70k worth of information is fine. 70k worth of unsummarized information in one place is not; it's just too much to parse at once for those who don't want that much information.
Personally, I think those wanting the articles merged together are concentrating too much on the size aspect, because there are other reasons for the change too. The biggest problem, I feel, is the cramming all the mini-articles into one page without something in-between. The length thing would be just a related symptom of this. As the article stands now, there's a distinct level between "The season had 27 storms" and "Tropical storm X formed from a tropical wave that moved off the African Coast on September Y, 2005". Previously, I think different people were trying to make the storms section serve both (summary and detail) purposes, which is rather contradictory. I can't think of any way to solve that problem while keeping the individual storm mini-articles in the same article and avoiding objections of redundancy and bloat, and it doesn't seem to me that anyone else is addressing it.
Sorry if you think I'm just repeating myself again Brown, but I just don't understand what your position and reasoning is with respect to mine and others'. --AySz88^-^ 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I basically reflect what AyS just said. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, it is best the way it is right now, which is acting as a fairly concise summary of the entire season. Details are put on subpages. --tomf688{talk} 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Nate's Report

It's out: PDF Word --66.66.245.85 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, saw it just a few minutes ago. Not much to report though, but it's good that we have another one out. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Added it to the references. - Cuivienen 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


And Gamma's Report...

Is also released: PDF Word --66.66.245.85 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, if the other low absorbed Gamma instead of the other way around, we could have had an unnamed tropical storm! --AySz88^-^ 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep! They thought it was still a tropical depression at that point...so technically it was Tropical Storm 27 for a while... CrazyC83 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably pretty embarassing for NHC and obviously something they're trying to downplay. Gamma was the first misdiagnosed storm since Subtropical Storm Fifteen was completely missed actively in October, 2000. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And now Ophelia's Report

It's out. Made landfall in the Bahamas.Icelandic Hurricane 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Good eyes! -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And it looks like it reached hurricane status on 4 separate occasions (not 3). Not sure how many times that's happened before. Jdorje 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The total damage was reduced from 1.6 billion to 70 million, as the actual damage claims came in rather than estimates. --Ajm81 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've adapted the track-generator to read in the TCRs (I take the doc format and save it as text), and uploaded best-track maps for all of the storms that have reports. Jdorje 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
ThanksIcelandic Hurricane 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1.6B did seem quite high for the damage, but mind you, the 2-to-1 ratio is not a good one for the areas affected, which were overwhelmingly beach houses (likely most of them insured). CrazyC83 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


So how many storms were landfalling? tduwhs

16.--24.85.167.241 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow!Icelandic Hurricane 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in article

There is a mistake in the article where it says Late activity, it says that Hurricane Epsilon is the third strongest hurricane of december, it's wrong because Hurricane Epsilon is tied with Nicole as 2nd strongest storm and behind of the unnamed hurricane of 1925. Memicho 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicole was stronger than Epsilon. See the Epsilon article. Jdorje 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, sorry I missed that information. Memicho 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Hurricane Cindy and TS Bret Reports

Yep, she's a hurricane! Jamie C 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as we all thought! All signs clearly suggested that Cindy was a hurricane. The big one left to wait for is Emily - was she Category 5? (From the information I have, yes Emily was Cat 5, but will the NHC say so?) CrazyC83 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully she is.(Crazy can you help me with my L.N.B.S Hurricanes Articles)HurricaneCraze32 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
LNBS Hurricanes? CrazyC83 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
L=Lesser N=Notable B=But S=Strong.HurricaneCraze32 21:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks...I'll take a look and add/revise stuff. CrazyC83 21:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1 more thing:Can you make me a button set for it-that ToC is rdicoulously large.HurricaneCraze32 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to flatten it to 10 columns of three storms each to reduce the vertical size, but that for some reason compresses the colored parts of the central rows; I'm not sure why. Maybe someone else can figure it out. - Cuivienen 01:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bret's report is also out. No real surprises there. Barely a tropical storm and stayed that way. CrazyC83 21:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was reported strengthening when it hit land, the conditions it was over were very favorable. I don't think Emily will be upgraded to a 5. Here's why: 1) It's pressure was 929, very high for a 5. Floyd looked very good on the sat imagry and had a pressure of 921 and was not upgraded. 2) Remember that picture of the map, supposedly from NHC, with the storms and their intensities listed? Cindy was listed as a hurricane and Wilma was listed with 185 mph winds, both of those turned out to be the case. Emily however, was still listed as a 155 mph Cat 4. Just my 2 cents. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Jose still had 50 mph on that map and was upgraded to 60 in the report... CrazyC83 04:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Emily and Stan will be last. They are most confusing of the storms. Stan for deaths and Emily for Category. Emily still is under investigation. I'd love to see Stan retired-to help for a record.HurricaneCraze32 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Tough it is possible that Emily's pressure was wrong. Look at Wilma they think she had an even lower pressure. And Jose later analysis revealed winds to 60mph and a minimum pressure of 998 and the pic shows Jose at 1001. tdwuhs
So, approximately in how many days the NHC will get the reports for all the storms? Memicho 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say all but one or two within the next week or so...a couple may be held back CrazyC83 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Emily's Report

Indeed, Emily was a category 5 for at least 6 hours.... at 140 kts and 925 minimum pressure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.250.245 (talk • contribs) 13:45, January 27, 2006 (UTC).

Where did you get that from? The report is not out yet.WotGoPlunk 16:28, 27 January 2006
Hard to tell-could come from anywhere.Maybe it was fake.HurricaneCraze32 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, although they do sound realistic...we'll have to wait and see. CrazyC83 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Emily is hoping to be 5-Can you tell us where you got it?HurricaneCraze32 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still no Emily report on the 2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports page. I would assume the this person was just rattling our chains. --EMS | Talk 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_21&oldid=1136284767"