Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season and Alliance Manchester Business School: Difference between pages

Revision as of 21:48, 9 December 2005

Revision as of 21:04, 17 May 2007

Line 1:

{{infobox University

{{hurricane}}

|name= Manchester Business School

{| width="85%" align="center" id="talkheader" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 3px;"

|established= [[1965]] (2004 for the 'new' MBS)

|align=left|

|city= [[Manchester]]

{| width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="5" style="border: 0px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"

|country= [[United Kingdom]]

|align=left valign=center|Please remember to sign your comments using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"! (This request includes anonymous users.) <b>Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum.</b> See directly below for special discussion areas.

|type=[[Business School]]

|}

|website=http://www.mbs.ac.uk

|align=right valign=center|

|director= Michael Luger

{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;"

|address=Manchester Business School,<BR>Booth Street West,<BR>Manchester, M15 6PB<BR>United Kingdom

|align=center|'''Archives: [[/Archive 1|1]], [[/Archive 2|2]], [[/Archive 3|3]], [[/Archive 4|4]], [[/Archive 5|5]], [[/Archive 6|6]], [[/Archive 7|7]], [[/Archive 8|8]], [[/Archive 9|9]], [[/Archive 10|10]], [[/Archive 11|11]], [[/Archive 12|12]], [[/Archive 13|13]], [[/Archive 14|14]], [[/Archive 15|15]].'''

|campus= Urban

|}

|logo=[[image:ManchesterBusinessSchool_Logo.gif|160px]]

|}

}}

{| width="85%" align="center" id="talkheader" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 0px;"

|align=left|'''Monthly Event Archives''': [[/June|June]] - [[/July|July]] - [[/August|August]] - [[/September|September]] - [[/October|October]] - [[/November|November]] - [[/December|December]]<br>'''Storm Event Archives''': [[/Katrina|Katrina]] - [[/Rita|Rita]] - [[/Wilma|Wilma]] - [[/Epsilon|Epsilon]]<br>'''Specialized Discussion''': [[/Records]] - [[/Speculation]] - [[/betting pools|/Betting Pools]] - [[/records not broken|/Records Not Broken]]

|}<br>

'''Manchester Business School (MBS)''' is the business and management school of the [[University of Manchester]] in [[England]]. MBS is said to be "one of grand old men of British business schools" [http://education.independent.co.uk/graduate_options/business_schools/article2084627.ece] as it was founded in 1965 (together with the [[London Business School]]) after the Franks Report recommended the establishment of two high quality schools, as part of existing universities but with considerable autonomy. [http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search2?coll_id=6338&inst_id=32] MBS is the first school in the United Kingdom to offer MBA courses and according to the [[Financial Times]] it is ranked among the top 25 in the world.

== December ==

== Background ==

The "new" Manchester Business School was formed in 2004 as a result of the merger of the ''Manchester School of Accounting and Finance'', the "old" ''Manchester Business School'' (which was founded in 1965), and the ''Institute of Innovation Research'' of the [[Victoria University of Manchester]] and the ''Manchester School of Management'' of [[UMIST]]. The school comes under the Faculty of Humanities of the university..

===Week 2===

It offers Ph.D, MBA (full time and executive), several specialist masters programmes as well as top-ranked undergraduate degrees. As of 2006, a minimum work experience of 3 years and a minimum [[Graduate Management Admissions Test]] score of 600 is required for admission to the MBA programs. The 18 months full time MBA program is known for its "Manchester Method" which puts emphasis on learning by doing throughout the entire duration of the programme, including significant real life projects [http://www.mbs.ac.uk/services/consultancy-research/postgraduate-projects/international-business.htm], compared to arguably more academic MBA courses. The school has a high international student composition as three quarter of its student body is from outside the UK.

Could we have peace at last (and a much-needed winter break for the NHC)? Or do the tropics still have a bag of tricks left in store? [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor Michael Luger is the new Director since January 2007; he came from the [[Kenan-Flagler Business School]], part of [[University of North Carolina]].

: The north Atlantic SSTs remain anomolously warm for this time of year, and indeed just plain anomolously warm off of the coast of Africa [http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif]. OTOH, the winds are totally hostile to tropical storm formation, especailly over the tropical north Atlantic where the waters are the warmest. So I get the feeling that the tropics do still have a "bag of tricks" in store, but they will have difficulty reaching into it. For now. However, there is always [[2006 Atlantic hurricane season|next year]] [http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/dec2005/]. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Accreditation and reputation==

== "Earliest" Hurricane Statistics ==

The Manchester Business School is part of a small and select band of institutions worldwide which receive [[triple accreditation]] by [[AACSB]] International, [[AMBA]] and [[EQUIS]].

The school was recently ranked among the top 25 business schools in the world for the second time for its MBA program, and 2nd in the world for its doctoral program [http://media.ft.com/cms/9753d360-a6ee-11db-83e4-0000779e2340.pdf]. It is placed 9th in Europe and 4th in the UK, while being 5th in the world for international business and 4th in Europe for percentage salary increase of its graduates. Regarding international experience, MBS is 6th in the world and 1st in the UK as well as is ranked in the world's top 13 for the career progress of its alumni.

===The Project===

Furthermore, Manchester Business School was selected by [[HM Treasury]] as part of the [[Highly Skilled Migrant Programme]] which exempts MBA-graduates from the world's top 50 business schools from the usual visa requirements to work in the UK. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) awarded the school's teaching quality with 24 points out of 24. In the previous 2001 [[Research Assessment Exercise]] (pre-merger) the 'old' Manchester Business School and Manchester School of Management were rated 5; and Manchester School of Accounting and Finance was rated 5* (five star).

''Note - much of the discussion and update-notifications from my project were moved to Archive 6, [[Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_6#"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics (Archived)|here]].'' [[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Partner Universities ==

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

The Manchester Business School has '''one of the world's largest international exchange programmes''' [http://www.economist.com/globalexecutive/education/executive/profile.cfm?id=manchester], among others with following institutions:

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

'''Europe'''

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

* Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien - Austria

* Copenhagen Business School - Denmark

* Helsinki School of Economics - Finland

* Hanken Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration - Helsinki, Finland

* Helsinki School of Economics & Business Administration - Finland

* HEC - Paris, France

* ESSCA Angers - France

* Bordeaux Business School - France

* ESC Grenoble - France

* IESEG, Lille - France

* Université Jean-Moulin, Lyon III - France

* Université de Strasbourg, Robert Schumann - France

* Universite de Paris Dauphine - France

* WHU Koblenz, Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management - Germany

* University of Mannheim - Germany

* SDA Bocconi - Milan, Italy

* Rotterdam School of Management - Netherlands

* Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam - Netherlands

* University of Amsterdam - Netherlands

* Norwegian School of Management - Norway

* Instituto de Empresa - Madrid, Spain

* Universidad de Navarra - Spain

* ESADE - Barcelona, Spain

* Stockholm School of Economics - Sweden

* Lund University - Sweden

* University of St Gallen - Switzerland

'''The Americas'''

--------------------

* EAESP - Sao Paulo, Brazil

* Universidad Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPEAD, Brazil

* McGill University - Montreal, Canada

* McMaster University - Hamilton, Canada

* University of Toronto - Toronto, Canada

* York University - Toronto, Canada

* University of British Columbia - Vancouver, Canada

* Simon Fraser University - British Columbia, Canada

* Universidad Adolfo Ibanez - Santiago, Chile

* Universidad de Los Andes - Bogota, Colombia

* IPADE - Mexico City, Mexico

* ESAN - Lima, Peru

* [[Cornell University]], The Johnson School - USA

* [[New York University]], [[Stern School of Business]] - USA

* Ohio State University, Fisher College of Business - USA

* Indiana University, Kelley School of Business - USA

* Pennsylvania State University - USA

* Southern Methodist University - Texas, USA

* Case Western Reserve University - USA

* Emory University, Goizueta Business School - Atlanta, USA

* University of California - USA

* [[University of Chicago]] - USA

* University of Florida, USA

* University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - USA

* University of Maryland, Robert H Smith School of Business - USA

* University of Minnesota - USA

* University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flagler Business School - USA

* University of South Carolina - USA

* University of Southern California - Marshall School of Business, USA

* University of Texas at Austin - McCombs School of Business - USA

* University of Washington - Seattle, USA

* Washington University - St Louis, USA

* Vanderbilt University, Owen Graduate School of Management - USA

* IESA - Caracas, Venezuela

'''Asia-Pacific'''

===October 17===

* University of Melbourne, Melbourne Business School - Australia

* University of Sydney - Australia

* University of New South Wales - Australia

* CEIBS - Shanghai, China

* Tsinghua University - Beijing, China

* Fudan University, Shanghai, China

* Hong Kong University of Science & Technology - Hong Kong

* Chinese University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong

* Chulalongkorn University, Sasin Graduate Institute of Business - Bangkok, Thailand

* Indian Institute of Management - Ahmedabad, India

* International University of Japan - Niigata, Japan

* Singapore Management University - Singapore

* National University of Singapore - Singapore

== Notable alumni ==

*1st Storm - ''132 days behind''

*2nd Storm - ''43 days behind''

*3rd Storm - ''25 days behind''

*4th Storm - 2 days ahead

*5th Storm - 11 days ahead

*6th Storm - 13 days ahead

*7th Storm - 14 days ahead

*8th Storm - 12 days ahead

*9th Storm - 13 days ahead

*10th Storm - 1 day ahead

*11th Storm - 4 days ahead

*12th Storm - ''2 days behind''

*13th Storm - 6 days ahead

*14th Storm - 4 days ahead

*15th Storm - 9 days ahead

*16th Storm - 9 days ahead

*17th Storm - 10 days ahead

*18th Storm - ''1 day behind''

*19th Storm - 20 days ahead

*20th storm - 17 days ahead

*21st storm - 29 days ahead

*22nd storm - still ahead of the old record for 19th

*23rd storm - still ahead of the old record for 21st, and still ahead of 1995's 19th.

*24th storm - just three days behind the old record for 21st

*25th storm - just eight days behind the old record for 21st

*26th storm - two weeks behind the old record for 21st<br> <!-- from here on out we can record what old record a new storm is ahead of -->

* [[Richard Anao]], Chairman, Nigerian Accounting Standards Board

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

* [[Tony Bickford]], Former Chairman, QAS

* [[Liam Byrne]], Member of Parliament and [[Minister of State]]

* [[Urban Splash|Tom Bloxham]], founder of influential regeneration firm [[Urban Splash]]

* [[Roger Crook]], Chief Executive Officer, DHL Latin America

* [[Don Cruickshank]], Chairman of SMG plc and former chairman, [[London Stock Exchange]]

* [[Andy Duncan]], Chief Executive of [[Channel 4]] television

* [[Keith Edelman]], Managing Director of [[Arsenal Football Club]]

* [[Rijkman Groenink]], Chairman of the Managing Board, [[ABN AMRO]]

* [[Teo Chee Hean]], current [[Minister for Defence]] of [[Singapore]]

* [[Robert H. Herz]], Chairman, US [[Financial Accounting Standards Board]]

* Sir [[Terry Leahy]], Chief Executive Officer of [[Tesco]], the largest British supermarket chain. He was chosen as Britain's "Business Leader of the Year" in 2003 and the Fortune European Businessman of the Year for 2003 and was selected as Britain's most admired business leader by Management Today in 2005

* [[Tony Lloyd]], Member of Parliament

* [[Michael D. Parker]], Chief Executive Officer, [[BNFL]]

* [[Jurek Piasecki]], Chairman and Chief Executive, Goldsmith Group plc

* [[Brian Quinn]], Former Deputy Governor of the [[Bank of England]] and Chairman of [[Celtic F.C]] board

* [[James Ross]], Former Chairman, The Littlewoods Organisation

* [[Paul Skinner]], Chairman, [[Rio Tinto Group|Rio Tinto]]

* [[Brenda Smith]], Group Managing Director of [[Ascent Media]] Group and Former Managing Director of [[Granada Television]]

* [[Vijit Supinit]], Chairman, [[Stock Exchange of Thailand]]

* [[David Varney]], Executive Chairman, [[HM Revenue and Customs]]

* [[Andreas Vranas]], Vice-Governor, [[National Bank of Greece]]

== External links ==

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

* [http://www.mbs.ac.uk Manchester Business School] – official website

:[[User: E. Brown|E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast]] - [[User talk: E. Brown|Squawk Box]] 16:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

* [http://blogs.mbs.ac.uk MBA Life at Manchester Business School] - Official Student Blog

* [http://bhaskar.blogsome.com Student experience] - First Year MBA student blog

* [http://www.cms5.org CMS5 @ MBS] 5th International Critical Management Studies Conference hosted at Manchester Business School

* [http://leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com Leaders We Deserve] - Blog of Prof.Tudor Rickards,Professor of Creativity and Organisational Change at Manchester Business School

{{UK-university-stub}}

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

[[Category:Business schools in England]]

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

[[Category:Education in Manchester]]

[[Category:University of Manchester]]

::::Zo, I don't remember ever removing your post. I don't think I ever saw the post. This is the only edit of mine of this section that I could find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=25747329&oldid=25747083]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.

::::[[User: E. Brown|E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

After the incredible 2:30 AM update from the NHC, I've tentatively updated my Cat-5 research page to include new data on Wilma... and I'll clean it up and make sure it's all correct tomorrow morning after actual advisories are out. [http://pipsey.net:8080/~thegreatzo/cat5.html LINK] -[[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::::Archived a couple of sections. --[[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 15:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gamma. [[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Delta! [[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:Indeed! Site will be updated within an hour or so. --[[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

::Storms are always welcome in the middle of nowhere. Tropical cyclones are kind of like bears: really cool, but wouldn't want to get too close. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Epsilon has arrived. {{Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} &#x2605; 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:Yup - and on the site. I'm getting sick of having to take five minutes to update it every few days. I have finals coming up, gimme a break already! ;) --[[User:The Great Zo|The Great Zo]] 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:I was on the site updating the very minute that Epsilon formed...before NHC even had their graphics up. I had it all updated and then some goon came in and deleted it all, thinking that Epsilon hadn't formed yet. Really made me mad :([[User:209.62.224.245|209.62.224.245]] 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Don't get caught by suprise! -gets ready to welcome Zeta- [[User:Bloing|Bloing]]

== Gaps ==

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

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

:If Delta lasts into December, or a late storm forms, how does that figure into the gap time as a percentage of the season? --[[User:Route56|Route56]] 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::The time spent off-season won't count. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

*'''Season started: June 1 0400Z.'''

*TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.

**A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.

*HPC stops monitoring Arlene on June 13 2100Z.

*TD 2 formed: June 28 2200Z.

**A gap of 15 days, 1 hour.

*Bret dissipates on June 30 0300Z.

*TD 3 formed: July 3 2100Z.

**A gap of 3 days, 18 hours.

*Emily dissipates on July 21 1500Z.

*TD 6 formed: July 21 2100Z.

**A gap of 6 hours.

*Franklin went extratropical on July 29 2100Z.

*TD 8 formed: Aug 2 2100Z

**A gap of 4 days.

*Irene went extratropical on August 18 1500Z.

*TD 11 formed: Aug 22 1600Z

**A gap of 4 days, 1 hour.

*Jose dissipated on August 23 1500Z.

*TD12 formed: Aug 23 1835Z.

**A gap of three hours 35 minutes, rounded up to four hours.

*HPC stops monitoring Rita on Sept 26 0900Z.

*TD19 formed: Sep 30 2100Z.

**A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.

*NHC stops monitoring Stan on Oct 5 0900Z.

*Tammy formed: Oct 5 1130Z

**A gap of two and a half hours, rounded down to two hours (as the call was likely made previously).

*HPC stops monitoring Tammy on Oct 6 2100Z.

*STD22 formed: Oct 8 1500Z.

**A gap of 1 day, 18 hours.

*STD22 dissipated on Oct 9 0300Z.

*Vince formed: Oct 9 1500Z.

**A gap of 12 hours.

*NHC stops monitoring Vince on Oct 11 0900Z.

*TD24 formed: Oct 15 2100Z.

**A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.

*NHC stops monitoring Wilma on Oct 25 2100Z.

*TD26 formed: Oct 27 0000Z.

**A gap of 1 day, 3 hours.

*NHC stops monitoring Beta on Oct 31 0300Z

*TD27 formed: Nov 14 0300Z.

**A gap of 14 days.

*TD27 dissipated on Nov 16 1500Z

*TD27 reformed as TS Gamma: Nov 18 2100Z.

**A gap of 2 days, 6 hours.

*Gamma dissipated on Nov 21 0300Z

*Delta formed: Nov 23 2100Z

**A gap of 2 days, 18 hours.

*Delta went extratropical at Nov 28 1500Z

*Epsilon formed: Nov 29 1500Z

**A gap of 1 day.

*'''Season ended: Dec 1 0500Z''', with Epsilon still active.

(Off-season storm time does not count here)

== Modified ToC ==

The Table of Contents for this page is enormous. Unacceptably so, in my opinion. I've created an alternative ToC that takes up far less room. I want to present it here first to make sure it meets approval and see what people think could be changed for the better. I think it covers everything and could be put at the top of the page.

{{tl|ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}}

-- [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:Check out my (beta) version of the ToC [[User:RattleMan/Other#2K5AHS_ToC|here]]. -- [[User:RattleMan|RattleMan]] 06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree with both of these options and with the opinion that it's too long. For one thing, both options omit the storm strength from the ToC. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

::Why should the ToC tell the strength of the storms? Isn't that the purpose of the storms section? The ToC is just a navigational tool, not a source of information. -- [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:::It offers much more context than just a name, thus aiding navigation within the article. (Note that this was one of my complaints with the button bar - they lacked context, giving you only a color and a letter.) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better with the 3 boxes at the top put side by side? ie left, centre, and right aligned. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not sure we should get into making such layout decisions. Also, it would split apart the hurricane infobox and the SS scale, even in its original smaller form, thus requiring about as much whitespace as we have now - in other words, no change in length, but with less information and IMO poorer layout. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This feels like the button bar issue again. There has to be a way to make something small enough to please everyone, without loosing all the information. People tend to use memes (uniform colors, well known cues, political preferences) to provide this additional information, but if one wants to provide the information without these additional cues, and just direct text, it becomes unweildly, yet provides enough information. If one provides no cues, and just text, it is small and tiny, but no context. The unfortunate problem is wikipedia tooltips cannot be uniformly applied, and the nature of HTML itself prevents one form providing expandable information without an additional standard like javascript. Anyone got any ideas? Status bar messages have been eliminated due to their ability to insert malicious code. Javascript cannot be applied indvidually to an article, and hovering tool tips are hard to apply, because links always float above divs or table cells.--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]]&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Ctrl_build&#124;talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; &#91;&#91;Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF&#124;15px&#124;]] 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

: The proposed reformating above would reduce the TOC size by eliminating the storm subsections. Another option would be to replace the "===" surrounding the storm titles with "<nowiki><h3></nowiki>" and "<nowiki></h3></nowiki>". This would create the same visual effect but would eliminate the individual storms from the TOC. As for the proposed revised TOC: I find it to be dense and clumbsy. Let's deal with the underlying issue, namely that the storms section itself is a mess, and one way or another needs to be tabularized. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

::I disagree with tabularizing it, every solution I've seen looks ugly (IMO) and doesn't help the supposed problem at all. I don't think we should be using hacks, either. What's wrong with having a long article and a long ToC? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The ToC is, ultimately, what's causing the excess of white space at the top of the article. With a smaller ToC we can move the SS scale into the summary section and have a reasonably small amount of white space at the top of the page. -- [[User:168.229.34.40|168.229.34.40]] 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

::::The ToC is too long because the article is too long. Wikipedia is not paper; there's no reason not to use structured articles here. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree with both TOCs above. If we either took out the <nowiki>== ==</nowiki> heading format, or convert to the tabular format above, this problem would be solved since the TOC would be much shorter. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:Removing the ToC would leave no way to navigate the article, and is not a solution. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How about the button next to the name - second one in [[User:AySz88/Sandbox]]? It gives the strength of the storm, like Golbez wants. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(Oh, that's only a rough idea, so don't just dismiss it because it's ugly.) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:Better than the above options, but I still prefer the normal ToC. For one thing, as I've said about the button bars, it relies too much on categories. "Oh, "S" whatever S is was white, must not have been major." At least the normal ToC is somewhat neutral on that front (Before you ask - there is a structural difference between tropical storms, tropical depressions, and hurricanes, but not so much between a category 1 and a category 3). I do not want to assume the reader can figure out the colors, or categories, or what not; I only assume the reader knows how to read, which is why I tend to dislike the tabular options here. There is still such a thing as prose on this pedia, rather than rote information. (And then there's the obvious accessibility concerns - using color as a method of imparting information is frowned upon, not everyone using Wikipedia can see/has color.) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

:: What about using "TS" / "TD" / 1-5 instead of the initials, or add a column for number of deaths? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

::I'm personally not liking the direction this is going. Let's try not to divert ''too'' far from the standard. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Okay, maybe just split it into columns for now? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be objectionable. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: I can see creating a 4-column TOC, with ''one entry per cell''. The leftmost column would navigate people to the main sections. The next three would navigate people to the storms. With nine navigation rows per column, you would have rows 2 and 3 full with the A - T stroms, and the V, W, and greek letter storms in the last column. It may look nice.

:::: On the other hand, '''do not''' go off adding statistics to the TOC. That is not what it is there for. What you can do is to create a season overview table, with one storm per row. The columns could be dates, maximum winds, lowest pressure, landfall(s) (when, where, storm stregth at landfall). Perhaps one of you may wish to play with this.

:::: Finally do note that I thank that the best way to deal with the Storms section is to tabularize it as shown above. Note that this would not conflict with the breifer table that I am suggesting here, since the two would contain different information. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 03:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a good idea in the least. Wikipedia has a standard TOC box used in ''every article'', and it is not necessary or wise to make one specifically for this article. If the TOC is too long, it should be a message to you that either A) the article is too long and needs to be split into subpages, or B) there are too many subheadings. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:I removed the subheadings for the storms and replaced them with plain, bold, size 4 text in hopes that it will resolve the TOC issues. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

::I suspect it's just me, but I reverted it because it caused the SS templated to merge with text. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:::No issues for me. If anyone else wants to test it, it's located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=29020624] --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:This isn't correct - see [[Wikipedia:Section#Compact_TOC]]. I interpret that to mean you're allowed to condense long ToCs into lists. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing the ToC at all. It's fine the way it is. It is a navigational tool, and removing the subheading would make it harder to navigate. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 08:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed mine up a bit - second one at [[User:AySz88/Sandbox]]. Feel free to edit and suggest improvements. It really condenses the size of the ToC vertically. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:I like this version very much - it really solves the vertical length problem without losing any of the ToC content (and it looks much better than the usual ToC). - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Button Bar getting long ==

The button bar's getting to be a bit long... <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:I don't see it as a problem until it fills the entire bottom of the screen, which would only hyappen if we have 4 or 5 more storms (highly unlikely). -- [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

::I'm running Firefox with bookmarks constantly open (however squeezed as small as possible). The bar makes the page width grow. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Of course the button bar will stretch the screen with Favorites/Bookmarks open - that's almost a given. However, that shouldn't be a consideration when formatting the article as non-standard screen sizes will always cause problems with Wikipedia formatting. If the button bar stretches the screen when the page fills the entire window, then there's a problem. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

: I split the row into two; if anyone thinks that's a bad idea (I personally can't think of any reason), then feel free to revert and discuss. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

::For now it works. It might be a problem if another storm forms. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 03:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I make a recommendation on the Button Bar? (don't know why I'm asking, I'm going to do it anyway) For the greek letters Gamma and Delta, I would suggest putting those in uppercase, since they are unlike any of the Roman letters used during the course of the season, unlike Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon, which are pretty much the same as A, B, and E in the uppercase form. In my opinion, due to the conflict between Roman and Greek letters, the lowercase forms of Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon are more recognizable anyway, and the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta are far more recognizable than their lowercase counterparts. - [[User:RPIRED|RPIRED]] 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. There's no reason ''not'' to use the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta. Uppercase Delta is ''far'' more recognizable than the lowercase form. The lowercase Gamma could be confused with a V. --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to center the second row under the top one? It looks bad for the top row to have a hanging edge. Also the colors of the buttons run together. There needs to be a space between the rows. --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:: Right now, there's a one-pixel gap. There might be a way to make the gap more than one pixel wide, but I can't seem to figure it out, though if anyone knows, it might be a good idea (the same gap should probably also be between the header and the first row, for balance). --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I went ahead and made the space between rows the same gap as between buttons in a row. --[[User:Ajm81|Ajm81]] 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:As for the second row being centered, it might be possible, but I'd wait until January incase a late storm pops up. --[[User:Ajm81|Ajm81]] 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lower case gamma was more recognizable to me than upper case gamma. I look at upper case gamme and think, "WTF"? [[User:Timl2k4|TimL]] 06:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What in the world is Γ ? Is that gamma?

Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω

--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl build]]&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Ctrl_build&#124;talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; &#91;&#91;Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF&#124;15px&#124;]] 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== ACE ==

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

:I would second that. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 07:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What if the ACE is mentioned in the summary of each storm? It is useful to give a quick indication of the duration/intensity of a storm. (In fact next to the name of each storm we could have in a smaller font, its duration (in hours?) min pressure, and max wind. [[User:Timl2k4|TimL]] 18:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

: There is an ACE column in the table in am created (as described just below). I for one kind of like the ACE being tracked, but I agree that this section is not buying us much, and should be removed soon. At the least, ranking the storms by their ACE is quite trivial. Even so, this is information that should be available somewhere, but probably not in a stand-alone fashion. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 19:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

: Seconded [[User:A435(m)|A435(m)]] 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::Disagreed to an extent. While the information is interesting, how many people know what those magic numbers mean? How many people care to find out? Those figures are meaningless to the average person. The description of ACE given in the section does not tell the reader how to interpret the numbers (i.e. what's good and what's bad). So what point do they ''really'' serve? -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The same could be said of just about any information in an encyclopedia. I'd never heard of ACE values until reading that section on this page. All I know about them I have learned from wikipedia (on this and the ACE page). Thus if this information is misleading, then I am sure I have a poor conception of what the values are. However, I think the ACE page is fairly clear in explaining. Maybe I'm a stats junky, but that information is the main thing I return to this page for (sadly, several times a day whenever there is a storm going). -- Rylan42 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

: That is incorrect. When adding with different significant figures, the key is which decimal place is shared by all of the numbers (the least accurate decimal place). In this case it would be the tenths, since some numbers such as 38.6 exist on the scale. However, there are no individual storms with ACE numbers accurate only to the 1s place. Thus, when you add together the 24 storms you keep the tenths. 224.5 is accurate. Propagation of error is not the same as significant figures. -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:: I think someone might have just changed it again. PK9 is correct - when you add or subtract two numbers with sig figs, the result may be a number with more sig figs than the numbers that were added, since the number is truncated based on place values, not number of sig figs. For example, 99.0 + 2.12 = 101.1 (four sig figs), not 101 (three sig figs). --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

:It's on the statistics page. If y'all are gonna make it, y'all are gonna have to use it. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::I don't even know where the statistics page is, and honesetly, I don't know if I want to search for it. The ACE table is very useful, and I don't know why the information should be removed. I did follow the external link to the official page, and the wikipedia version was just much easier to use. I've not done any editing on the hurricane pages since there are much more knowledable and experienced people working on this. I'm just a reader. Still, I'm very tempted to try to figure out how to put the ACE table back. [[User:129.120.106.137|129.120.106.137]] 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:I immediately noticed that the ACE section was gone and I would like to see it restored also.

::I vote for putting the ACE back in. I'd do it myself but other edits have been done since the removal, so I can't just revert, and I'm not expert enough to try to manually put it back in. [[User:PK9|PK9]] 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::It's on the statistics page where it belongs. It's linked from the top of the main section. The ACE section is number bloat that has no business being in the article, especially when the information is linked right there. It takes up more space in the article than a storm or two, and if people are going to complain that the storms section is too long, maybe they should remove trivial information like that. I would love for someone to explain how Stan's ACE is useful information. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the statistics page. If you want to put it back, just copy from that page - but I suggest you do not. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::::I know it's on the statistics page, and it still took me a while to find the link to that page. Plus, I don't like having to scroll through that hideous chart just to find the ACE table. I'd like to see someone convincingly argue why "2005 atlantic tropical cyclone statistics" deserves its own page while "Hurricane Vince" does not. -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::I agree complerely - there shouldn't be a statistics article. I think the death toll table should be deleted or moved back here, the colorful chart should be deleted, and the ACE chart should be deleted, or EXTREMELY summarized here. But as long as we have it, might as well use it. If you want to AFD it, go for it and I will support you, but I have other hills I'd rather die on than that. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

: I'm not sure how many people are aware that the 2004 and 2005 seasons are effectively tied for the third most energenic seasons. This makes 2004 and 2005 the most energenic back-to-back seasons. Actually, the last three years have been the most energetic three seasons. The last 5 and 10 years have also been records. [[User:Wrs1864|Wrs1864]] 19:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::This can be expressed without an entire section and table. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:Another vote for having the ACE table back in the main article. I missed it and I see it as concise information serving a good, well-defined purpose.[[User:Dunemaire|Dunemaire]] 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:Now that the link to the stats page has been added at the top of the main page, the information is much easier to find. If we have a statistics page, it makes since for the ACE values to be there (though, I do still miss them on the main page). Question: if we move all of that type of information to a stats page, should we then set up another page for this season's records and move all of them from here to there? The logic is the same for moving ACE, and I daresay that would shorten the article (which many people have expressed a desire for). [[User:129.120.106.137|129.120.106.137]] 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

'''All the IPs should really try to sign up an account, and then continue talking, it's so hard to read with those numbers popping up.''' <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 00:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

: NSLE, relax, there are only a couple different IPs, and I really doubt they are [[Wikipedia:sock puppet|sock puppets]].

: In this case, I think listening to the readers of the article is wise. There seems to be overwhelming support for returning the ACE table to the main article. (That does not imply that people support Golbez's opinon of a need to "summarize" the section in order to fit it in the main article, of course.)

: Is there any such thing as a 'request for readership comments' or something similar we can put on the article, so we can get a better idea of what users want (not just for this issue, but things like the button bar too)? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Yeah, I've gotten caught up in trying to solve/close/end the [[User:EddieSegoura|Eddie sock scandal]], so I've gotten that tendency. I have to say, it's suspicious, though, that all are IPs (95% ish) and all call for the return of ACE. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::: NSLE, I signed up for an account with Wikipedia earlier today (simpler process than I expected it to be). Earlier, I was signing this page (by hand) with the name "Rylan". I recently realized that handle name belongs to someone else, so I quit using it and just let the IP show. I am the one listed earlier in this section as 129.120.106.137. Would it clarify things if I go in and edit those to my new account name? [[User:Rylan42|Rylan42]] 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: Nah, it's fine. I've just been caught up in a similar situation, so things which look suspicious (like this) I'll assume sockpuppetry. Although for others it may be better if you do change anything you signed as "Rylan" to your username. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: The "Rylan"s in this section have been changed to "Rylan42" but looks like others are already archived. The "real" Rylan has probably never even visited this page so hopefully not any real confusion would result. That aside, I'm still in favor of either restoring the ACE values or keeping the link to the stats page at the top. I notice the link was just removed from the top, and now it is much harder for people that don't know about the other page to find it. [[User:Rylan42|Rylan42]] 04:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::No, I actually agree with Golbez. ACE is a statistic, and should be kept on the statistics page. Most people will read, or actually at least scroll trough, the article, so the link will still show up near the bottom. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 04:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::: I still like having it on the main page, but it does make sense on the statistics page. I'm fine with that as long as the link is moved to a place it can be logically found -- either the very top of the page or in the links section. Currently, it is in the first section after the introduction. [[User:Rylan42|Rylan42]] 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::: I am [[User:81.174.244.201|81.174.244.201]] and I forgot to login before making the comment last time -- sorry -- I am not a sock puppet I believe, although I had never heard of the term till the discussion here. I still prefer to see it on the main page, but if there is a strong view against then can we have the ACE in the season summary table have a sublink to a storm breakdown given on the stats page or something like that... [[User:Nashikawa|Nashikawa]] 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

== Working on a summary table ==

I am creating a table summarizing the 2005 AHS. It is currently complete through Katrina. It is located at [[User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/TC_table]]. This is meant to be in addition to the Storms section, but as a replacement for the ACE section and the deaths table. It think that this can be a succinct summary of the season's statistics, presenting a fair amount of information in a reasonably coherent fashion. For example, it makes it easy to see that the category 5 storm Katrina only made landfall as a category 4 storm. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 06:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:That is...extraordinarily colorful. Oh, and wind should NOT be in knots. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 06:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:Doesn't help the supposed size problem with the article, and again, am I alone here in expecting people to be able to read? I don't need a table to tell me that Katrina was bad, or that Lee was a non-event. As for when Katrina made landfall, I think the article states that just fine. There remains only three Cat 5s to strike at intensity. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 08:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::: I honestly don't see how anyone can consider a table an insult to their reading ability. Also, easier lookup of information = good. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::::*shrug* I just think over-tabularizing is a bad thing. I prefer to keep most things in text, and keep things that work best in tables (the earliest-storm chart) in tables. I guess what I'm saying is, if it's already in text, why table it? And if you're tabling it, does that mean you're going to remove it from the text?

::Also, you're imparting information with color, which is considered bad, due to accessibility and browser issues. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::: What's the problem with color if it's not the only place to get the same information? (i.e. the category and winds are listed right there!) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 16:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::::The landfalling category is mentioned in text? Because it's not. Could be added. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::Landfall windspeeds are mentioned in text, which is plenty enough. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 21:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: I have no problem with using color, however too much color makes it look bad. I can't stand looking at a giant swath of teal and red accross my screen, it makes it hard for me to read the information contained within. [[User:PK9|PK9]] 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

----

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

* Added header links;

* Using mph instead of knots;

* Moved the ACE column to just left of the landfall columns (since this is an overall storm characteristic);

* Created a "no landfall" color;

* Added entries through Maria.

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

I find the colors to be useful. Given that the user is oriented to their meanings, this becomes a useful guide to the table itself. However, explanation is needed, and I agree that color cannot be the only way of imparting category-related information in that table (and in fact there is a category column in the table itself). The need for an explanation is another reason that this probably does not belong in the main article. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 19:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea but this table is just too big IMO. I mean it's HUGE. Maybe its trying to stuff too much info into one table. [[User:Timl2k4|TimL]] 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I think it is the landfall information. It should be taken out. It just makes the table too big IMO. [[User:Timl2k4|TimL]] 16:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a much more minimalist example, needs a lot of work, my table creation skills are minimal (no pun intended!), but I think its a better starting point. [[User:Timl2k4/Sandbox|Smaller summary table]] {{unsigned|Timl2k4|17:38, November 27, 2005 (UTC)}}

It's meant as a quick reference, so size really doesn't matter very much, more information in a tabularized format is more important. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's going in the main article size DOES matter. The current table is an eyesore in my opinion. No offense ems, I think it has to do with the colors and the cramming in of so much info. Just my opinion but a very strong one. [[User:Timl2k4|TimL]] 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

: I do agree with you on placing this in the main article. I wanted it there at first but that is not going to work. Your smaller version may be usable, but even that is going to take up room in an already crowded article. (You are also going to be surprised by how big even that smaller table gets to be.) My thoughts at this point are to complete the thing and build a statistics article around it. If gets deleted, so be it, but I think that as an auxillary article it can work.

: On the colors issue, all that I can tell you is that every time I look at it I find that my eye is being guided by them. Only at first glance is this a riot of color. Once you have some idea of what you are looking for (like say that category 4 and 5 storms), you find that you can go right to them with very little searching. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

: P.S. You should look at the [http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html Unisys page the 2005 AHS], which shows how big even your smaller version can be. I think that tabularizing the statistics is a good thing to do, but it is not going to work in a main storm season article. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::I hate the table idea entirely. To be brutally honest, the colors are hideous. They blind the reader and turn him (figuative gender) away. If I saw that, I would not be compelled at all to read the article. I would be confused, disoriented and would not grasp the subject well. The way we have it right now makes the reader grasp the subject. The length is a menial issue in my opinion. The article is 66 kb long now. This talk page has been 150 kb long without anyone saying a word. And now people want to replace a perfectly good article with a hidious table, what's wrong with this picture? -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Are you reading my postings on this or not? I keep agreeing that this table does not belong in the main article, and most certainly cannot be a replacement for it. What I thought might be a good way of summarizing the season instead is big enough to be article in its own right. So my "out" is to go down the separate article route and see where it leads. I keep finding the table to be useful ''because'' of the colors. (BTW - I did not pick the storm colors. You can thank others for that, but I never was under any illusions that I would create another [[Mona Lisa]].) I will complete the table and try adding some supporting explanation. The small SS-scale template will be a good help with that BTW. But in any case, let's deal with my current plans, and drop any pretense that the main article will see anything more of it than a link or two to it.

::::My previous posting still applies. It is unattractive to the reader wherever it's put. -- [[User: E. Brown|E. Brown]]

=== Article version almost done ===

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

BTW - I may also put the table for comparing this season to an average season in this page. It is statistical and not in other storm season pages. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

== December? ==

The article says the hurricane season offically ends on the 30 November. Is this likely to still be the case given the state of the season this year? Will any formed in December be named from the 2006 list or contiuning along the Greek alphabet? [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] 07:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:They would continue to be named from the Greek alphabet. There have been December storms before, it isn't impossible, but let's hope not. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 07:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:: The cut-off point would be [[January 1]] [[2006]]. Any storms after that would follow the names list of the [[2006 Atlantic hurricane season]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Knowing, this season, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a December hurricane. That said, if the current overall atmospheric and oceanic conditions don't improve (which I can't see happening), a December storm will be highly unlikely. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: See [http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif the latest SSTs]. Note that at this time, the sea surface is staying relatively warm, especially in the [[Carribean Sea]]. Also note that somewhat warmer water extends all that way across the Atlantic as far north as the [[Strait of Gibraltar]] (which would account for [[Hurricane Vince|Vince]] BTW). So we are set up for a December storm, most likely in the Carribean. These SSTs are not the best for tropical storm formation, but they are far from being prohibitive for it. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: The waters around the Gibraltar should cool in the wake of Delta, though. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 05:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::: Vince was more right at Gibralter, but it does not seen to have done much in that regard! I assure you that the SSTs over the last month have been wierd, with the ocean seeming to have warmed instead of cooled. So it seems that there is some upwelling of wamer waters going on, most likely east of the [[Lesser Antilles]]. However, with winter rapidly approaching in the northern hemisphere, I find it hard to beleive that your prediction of cooler waters in that area is not going to come true soon. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

==My view==

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 09:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:If you believe non-notable information should not be in wikipedia, then why does it comprise 60% of the article? The information you are talking about is the ''entirety'' of the storms section. The purpose of moving it into (one or more) separate articles is so that readers of the main article do not have to wade through it. Because yes: people do not want to read this (except very rarely, as a reference). [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 09:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::Just tell me exactly what information in the storm summaries section is not notable? [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 09:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The information in the storms section is what we are proposing to move to separate articles; it is you who said it is not notable ("You don't need information on storms that are not notable"). I don't believe in notability criteria myself...but I am arguing along your lines. To follow those lines, there are two types of storms in the storms section: those that are notable and those that are not. For those that are notable, the info in this section is just a repeat of the "Storm history" from that storm's main article, and so unnecessary; this information is not interesting to have in the season article as the interesting bits are already included in either the [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Season summary|summary]] or the [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season|summary]]. For those storms that are not notable, the information is itself not notable and so (according to your argument) does not belong in wikipedia. [[Q.E.D.]]. Now, my argument is slightly different: I don't mind including non-notable information so long as it is structured properly so as not to bog down the reader (which is exactly what the current format does, since it is ''way too long''). Thus in my belief the entirety of the storms section does not belong in the season article, and the "obviously" best way to structure it is with one sub-article per storm. If nobody reads these sub-articles, who cares? At least you won't be ''forced'' to read it like you are now. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 09:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Reading your view, Jdorje, then, pray tell, what are you going to include in the season article? The season summary? Is that all? <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::Take out the storms section and we will be left with a 27k long article: a good size. There is also more ''useful'' information that can be added to the article at this point, since the Season summary section can be better structured, more storm tables can be added, etc. One example is the [[User:Michelle_T/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_rewrite#Economic_Effects|Economic effects section]] that was suggested. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::While, yes, it is good for the articles to be below 32k, there is no official rule anywhere that says it has to be. There are many well-written articles that are 40k or even 50k long, and, personally, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. And take out the storm summary section? WTF? Note: 2005 '''hurricane''' season. The hurricane season wouldn't exist without the tropical cyclones. Take out the tropical cyclones and then what do you have? GASP! Nothing! Becuase they '''are''' the season. They make up the season. Would you have, say, a first-person shooter without the badguys and the guns? No. You know why? Because that is what makes up a first-person shooter! OKay, bad comparison, but you get my point. The separate tropical cyclones are what makes up the season as a whole, and *GASP*, it wouldn't exist without them! [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::That argument is highly flawed. Every storm already receives mention in the 'Season summary' section. In fact the 'Season summary' already gives almost all of the notable information about all the storms (a few things, like damage, strength, ___location of each storm are not given but are already being considered for addition to the deaths table). For instance, compare the two forms below: one from the storms section, the other of which should be in the Season summary section. Based on your notability criteria, what does the first form offer that the second does not? ''Nothing''. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 18:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

{|

|-

|width=50%|Tropical Depression Thirteen formed from a tropical wave about 960 statute miles (1,550 km) east of the [[Lesser Antilles]] on [[August 28]]. It then degenerated into a broad area of low pressure on [[August 29]], but later regenerated on [[August 31]] and the [[National Hurricane Center]] resumed advisories. Later that day, it strengthened into Tropical Storm Lee, the 12th named storm of the season. Later in the evening it was downgraded to a tropical depression, having encountered an unfavorable upper level environment. The tropical depression dissipated on the evening of [[September 1]].

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

|width=50%|One other hurricane (Irene) and one tropical storm (Lee) formed but never posed a threat to land.

|}

:::::: <--

:I agree that the storms section really needs to stay in the article, and it's at a good size as is. As for specific storm articles, I'm just a bit more permissive than bob. I think we could mention some things (such as pressure), and I'm a supporter of the Vince article (as I find that storm interesting.) But I think that the Cindy article is very unneccessary, and personally think the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma articles should probably go. As far as Alpha and Gamma go, I think the death count isn't really high enough to make them worthy of articles without any other reasons. Unfortunately, death numbers of those amounts are not at all uncommon in those regions. But I guess I wouldn't really fight people keeping them.

:I liked the "economic effects" section, and I think it has a place in the article. And I rather like the idea of a seperate records article. I'd be sad to see the ACE table go, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. And honestly, I don't care about the button bar. I don't think it's needed, but it makes people happy, and it can stay if people want. But overall, I'm just tired of all the grief over the article size and what to do and so on and so forth. Some articles are long. We've had more than double the number of storms in a normal season. Some of them were very devastating. It will be long. It doesn't need to be tiny. --[[User:Patteroast|Patteroast]] 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Also note "2005 Atlantic hurricane '''season'''". To give each storm its due, the details about them need to be placed in their own articles, not cramped and cropped into a blurb on a page about the season.

:: The storms section can be cut down to size as details are moved from it to the articles, but it probably shouldn't be fully removed, as it serves as a fair storm-by-storm overview of the season.

:: "Notability" is very subjective, but the AfD for Tropical Storm Cindy shows that most seasoned general-Wikipedia editors think that it is more notable than whatever else is accepted on Wikipedia. Also, a small but fleshed-out article does not mean it should be merged into a page that basically serves as a summary.

:: The button bar is a wonderful tool for easier navigation, '''especially''' if individual storm articles are established.

:: Keep the ACE table in some form, since it'd be a shame to just lose that information, but agreed in that there's too much emphasis on it.

:: Records can be split off, general economic effects can be added (but that also highlights the difference between a season's details and each storm's - that section probably will summarize the season's effects, and nobody would want this article to detail the economic effects of every storm, since that goes into the individual storm articles).

:: Don't forget that there is ''also'' an introduction and sections in each storm's article - the introduction to the article serves those who want a simple overview of that storm and is basically what are the storm summaries now. That level of detail won't be skipped.

:: --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::: I largely agree with [[User:AySz88|AySz88]]. We need to shorten up the storms section, but retain the detail in individual storm articles for the most part. As-is the descriptions of each storm in the main article are way too long. It is my view that we need to come up with a new format and policy for these articles. There is too much data benig made available due to the increase in the size of the pool of editors who work on these pages. IMO, that alone may have made it so that doing atorm subpages is a viable and reasonable option when in was not before. At the least, the threshold for being "significant" enoughto justify an article has been reduced by the increased paritcipation.

::: My view is that we need to figure out how to organize what we have, and leave it for the future to determine what is or is not significant. We may well find that as a general rule that individual articles are quite appropriate for recent seasons but that as time goes on and interest wanes that a contraction is necessary and reasonable. However, I am loathe to make that judgement while still in the thick of the season. Let's act as [[pack rats]] for now, and see how we feel about the result when we have had a chance to gain a little perspective. After all, it is easier to delete content that to recreate it. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:A little summarization is all that is needed. I agree completely with you Bob rulz, and [[User:Hurricanehink/2005 Atlantic hurricane season rewrite|here]] is my version of what I think should happen. Mine is 35 kilobytes, but it includes every storm with some loss of text (oh well, it's shorter and, IMO, more interesting). [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:: That is an excellent start, but the storm summaries and still too big. (I would pare the descriptions to the bare bones, and let much of the detail be placed in individuial storm articles myself.) However, moving the records discussion to another article is an excellent idea (which I had been considering myself). I would also get rid of that oversized Saffir-Simpson scale graphic near the top: This article is about the season, not the SS scale. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The entire basis of this argument comes from the fact that some people here, a minority, have deemed that weaker storms are not notable. You do not have the authority to define what is notable or not notable; if individual articles are being created on storms, and are being filled up with information, then they are obviously notable. As for the changes above made by hink, I have to disagree, since they do not resolve the main problem which is the excessive length of the Table of Contents. Also, it does not include the storm tracks. See my tabled version above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::The length of the Table of Contents is not the problem here! Now, personally, as I have said before, people are fretting too much over the length of the article. There are quite a few well-written articles on Wikipedia ''longer than this one!'' However, that does not mean that it shouldn't be cut down a little. Hurricanehink, your suggestion is fairly good compared to others I have seen, although there are quite a few things I'd personally do different (such as get rid of the massive Saffir-Simpson Scale table and certain grammatical things; no big deal). It needs to be updated with how the pictures and current storm tracks are arranged at the moment, and I would keep the table on the number of deaths for each storm, but we could figure everything out from there. We don't need to do anything fancy, we don't need to separate every storm into a separate article. I actually think it's a reasonable solution, just needs to be updated and touched up a bit. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 08:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::Thank you Bob. I actually made that back when Wilma was around, so I didn't change a few things when the other storms came. I complete agree with what you said. The hurricane articles should be on here, not in sub pages. Mine is now 41 with the changes you suggested, not as bad as the current 67. I personally think the forecast section can be made much shorter, but that's just me. I did not change that part, but in the future someone can make it shorter. I put the TOC on the left so you wouldn't have to scroll so far for the first section. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::: If you try to squeeze the "hurricane articles" into this article (which serves as a ''summary'' of the season), you are ''losing the information'' off the face of Wikipedia! Hurricanehink's shortening would be fine, for example, except why the opposition to moving the details to separate articles instead of removing them completely?

:::::: My primary issue is that there currently isn't a place for these details to go - many are certainly not notable enough on an article about the season as a whole. My main motivation is not that the article is 'too long', though that should be taken into account because of others already expressing their views on that matter. It's just that moving the details has the added beneficial side effect of allowing the shortening the summary of the season, since unnecessary details (for the season article) are now in the individual articles.

:::::: Bob, the length of the Table of Contents is a separate issue related to how it renders in IE (there's a LOT of extra whitespace). --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 19:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::: <--

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

: I have to agree with [[User:AySz88|AySz88]] here. The main problem with removing storm articles (they're not subpages) is information loss. If an article ''can'' be written about one (and by that, I don't mean just how it formed and its track, I'm talking about substantial information like casualties and formation history), then there is no need to get rid of it. If there is no information, then it can't be written, and it should probably not exist. But that said, the users who are going to come looking for the [[Tropical Storm Cindy (2005)]] articles are probably those who are going to be interested in the technical details about them, because they're doing research or other things. More information = good. Too much information in one place = bad. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::Titoxd summed it up well, and I absolutely agree. If articles are being written, it is ridiculous to delete them in favor of having ''less'' information. People come to an encylcopedia to obtain technical details beyond a simple summary, and they should be able to access that information here through a friendly interface instead of having to interpret the meteorological-techno-speak the NHC releases in its reports. And Eric, as I've said before, articles about Presidents, airplane models, planets, etc., aren't placed on one page, so that argument isn't really going to work IMHO. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::You all seem to have completely ignored my point. Articles should only be created if there is enough useful information about it to justify an article. An article with just basic info about the storm is no good, the main article does that. We need articles with a lot of extra, interesting information. Not tedious, boring details. If you can meet these requirements for storms like Lee, I'll be very impressed. We want to create articles that people will want to read. Not fill a page with boring, stale, tedious details. If there is not enough interesting information presented in the article, then it should not exist. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Why does it matter whether the exact same information is held in the season article, where people will have to skip over it, or if it's held in a separate article, where they don't have to read it at all? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article: details are important. My goal would be to make the season article one that is interesting to read (it's not now - bogged down with too much detail) while moving the details into sub-articles. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Thank you Eric. You summed it up nicely. We have articles on all of the tropical systems that have too much information to put on the main page, and no interesting additional information is available about the storms that nobody cares about. No information will be lost by keeping the articles the way they are. Please, no subpages. There is not enough info for all of them to have subpages. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: Strange, it looks to me like two fully different arguments, which means I'm probably misunderstanding one of you.

::::: Eric: The worry that information might not lend itself to an "interesting article" does not imply that the information should be removed from Wikipedia. Besides, moving the details would actually make ''both'' articles 'more interesting' since what you view as "tedious details" are out of 2005AHS (where readers are looking for a season summary and not a cropped and compressed article-squeezed-into-a-blurb on each storm) and are moved to the individual storm articles. (To be perfectly clear: though I do agree that your "tedious details" should be out of this article, I think they should be moved and not removed, since I would characterize them more like "too-in-depth details" or "off-topic details" for this particular article considering that the topic of the article is the season as a whole.)

::::: Bob: I really don't see where you're getting that there's not enough information (see NHC TCRs, and existing in-progress pages, as well as the two earlier responses by Titoxd and Tomf688), and information has already been lost because people have/had been taking out "tedious details" (to use Eric's term).

::::: --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::Why would you want to put boring tedious information that no one will read into an article? See my post here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Do_individual_storm_articles] at the bottom of the section. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 14:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

People come to an encyclopedia to do research, not for entertainment. Whether information is "boring" or not is irrelevant. Also, contrary to the opinion above that every storm that should have an article dpes have an article, there have been several attempts at making individual articles on storms which have been shot down. See the edit history of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_Storm_Arlene_%282005%29&action=history Tropical Storm Arlene (2005)] for example. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the reasoning of some people on this page, I've decided to make a new proposal: Remove <i>all</i> individual storm articles. Katrina, Rita, etc, they can all be merged back into the main article. Yes, a lot of text will have to be "pruned", but all the information contained within the articles is already available somewhere on the internet. We'll put an external links section for whoever cares enough to want details about Katrina, etc...

But why stop there? We should merge all Atlantic seasons into one article. In 10,000 years who's going to care about stuff like what the names of all the storms were? All they'll care about is how many storms were in each season. The rest of that information is not notable, and with the proper pruning, we can have just one article on Atlantic hurricanes. People wanting more details can find it elsewhere on the internet... But wait, there's more. All the hurricane and typhoon season articles can be merged into the "Tropical Cyclone" article. We'll have to reduce some boring details, but ultimately the casual reader who doesn't really care about hurricanes won't want to be burdened with having to navigate through separate articles to read about hurricanes in the Atlantic or typhoons in the Pacific... Actually, the Tropical Cyclone article should be merged into the "Weather" article, since it is a type of weather phenomena, and we wouldn't want to lead anyone by the leash if they really don't have much interest in weather phenomena. If someone does have more than a minimal interest, there are plenty of places where they can go to look for it...

See how far this can go? Notability is subjective; you will ''always'' find someone who doesn't care about a certain subject no matter how general a level you make it. What's objective is the amount of data wikipedians are willing to collate and write up, and that's reflected in article length. -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== Tropical Depressions ==

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

[[User:Sarsaparilla39/Sandbox]]

:Great idea! The depressions shouldn't be with the storms, but we can't just get rid of them. Good compromise. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 14:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Agreed, that's a nice organizational change. (We're "too crazy," eh, Hurricanehink?) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 16:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Got that right Aysz88. Sarsaparilla, you should go ahead and do it. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 16:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: This has been done before as on [[1966 Atlantic hurricane season]]; I'm not sure why it wasn't continued. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:I could get behind this, even though I actually like having the depressions in the main sequence. But I won't complain if it's done. Except rename "Other Storms" to "Depressions" maybe. Actually, removing them from the main sequence does make it easier to see which was the Xth storm. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::But why stop with depressions? Why not move non-notable storms like Lee over there too? [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Because they're part of the main sequence of storms. The season included both Lee and STS22, but depressions are rarely if ever notable. Lee was notable essentially for incrementing the letter, but still necessary to fully explain that. Either split off the TDs, or don't, but don't split off the main storms. For the 2004 Pacific season, I attempted writing summaries only for the notable storms - that was apparently not what people wanted, as every Pacific storm for other seasons now has a writeup (the 2004 season article was the first one created). So people apparently want writeups for every main storm, but depressions, well, I said I COULD get behind it, but I prefer them to be in the main sequence. So maybe your interrogation is misdirected. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

: I don't think it's confusing, but I'll just go with the majority on this. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::Moving the storms out of the main sequence makes it harder to determine when they occured in the course of events of the season. There is no real reason to move these. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Agreed. I like the TD descriptions where they are and I believe it's better that way. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

== Dennis report - minor changes ==

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

:Where can Final Reports be found? --[[User:SargeAbernathy|SargeAbernathy]] 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf Click here for the Dennis report] - other reports can be found [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml? here]. I adjusted the timeline and made a few changes to the Dennis page to reflect the revised track. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Anyone know where the best-track info from the final report can be found (in a convenient text format, that is)? [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 09:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::: [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ms-word/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.doc Dennis report, in Microsoft Word] <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font> [[WP:CVU|<font color="red">CVU</font>]])} 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Unisys when it is released, not sure when it will be there. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

==Wikicane==

{{tcportal}}

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

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

: Well, [[Portal:Tropical cyclones]] can definitely be done, if people consider it to be a good idea. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::I actually was thinking about that once. I certainly won't stop anybody who wants to make it. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Then it's time to jump on the bandwagon and make it. I'll make that a blue link and I ask all the regulars here to go check that I'm doing everything right. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Make Cyclones capitalised, though, like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones]]... <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 06:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

: I hadn't read your comment, but fortunately, I had capitalized it anyways. It is available at [[Portal:Tropical Cyclones]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Now, I need people with some creativity to help me fill this out. I'll go look at other portals for ideas, but I'd sure like it more if all of us contributed on this. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]])} 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Looks really good. I'm looking forward to its expansion. Anything in particular that I can do? -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 14:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: There still is a lot to do! A layout has to be decided, and we have to decide what exactly to put on the main page. We also have to populate the list of categories, list of seasons, decide on an article to submit to [[WP:FA]] and [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]]. Also, we need to get ready for next season. Man... I think that we need all the hands we can get here. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== ACE and deaths tables ==

Once I saw that the ACE table had been removed, I decided that it was time to move my new article, [[2005 Atlantic tropical cyclone statistics]], over to the article space. I am also using it to take the place of the deaths table, which I did delete. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

== Removal of ACE ==

I understand why the ACE table was removed. However, I think it should be left in there because the ACE is of the records that was made/broken during the 2005 season. If someone wanted to know this information, he/she would look here. There is another article, [[2005 Atlantic tropical cyclone statistics]] (created by [[User:Ems57fcva|EMS]], see above section), but this article is not complete yet. -- [[User:165.161.3.13|165.161.3.13]] 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

== Two hurricane seasons in one? ==

One of the stories on my radio this morning talked about 2005 being like two Hurricane Seasons in one... OK, if we split this season into two (by gender of the storms(Alpha, Gamma & Epsilon Male, Beta & Delta Female), what do those two seasons look like? The Girls still give us a season that is very newsworthy; Katrina, Rita and Wilma are all *very* bad storms (in the top ten of the worst recorded). What about the Boys? Is a 13 storm season with Dennis, Stan and Gamma in it viewed as being medium, heavy or very heavy?[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:13 storms is still above average, but not greatly so. Dennis alone would have been a noteworthy storm to have in a season. (Many seasons haven't even had a single major hurricane.) Dennis and Stan together would be a bit like 1998 (Georges and Mitch) scaled down slightly: a pretty bad season. Gamma wasn't really all that notable. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:Um, Stan killed thousands of people. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::Yes but it was nowhere near what Mitch killed... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:Honestly, people, Greek letters do not have a gender signifier. That's something some fanciful poster here on Wikipedia invented, and it JUST WOULDN'T DIE. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|That's hot]] 05:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::I know that quite well, but the idea was to keep the split as an alternation and extend it until the current storm. Besides, the only GLO (Greek Letter Organization) that I know of that abbreviates to the "Betas" is Beta Theta Pi, which is a social men's fraternity. (The "Deltas" OTOH, has been used as an abbreviation for at least one men's fraternity and one women's sorority) Besides, next year Alpha will be Female. :) [[User:Naraht|Naraht]] 06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== Current events tag ==

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

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

:Shouldn't it be mentioned that any storms that might form during December would still be counted as part of this season? --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 06:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

== The Year the Atlantic Went Mad ==

The epic 2005 Atlantic hurricane season ends at midnight tonight. Not that that stopped Epsilon. I thought this would be a good time to reflect on this insane season.

*29 tropical cyclones

*26 named storms

*13 hurricanes

*7 major hurricanes

*3 Category 5 hurricanes

*8 US landfalling storms

*5 US landfalling hurricanes

*11 Gulf coast landfalls (Key West to Western Yucatan)

*2,823 dead

*17 countries directly affected

*$100+ billion total estimated damage

I hope I never see a hurricane season this bad again. 100 years from now, this season will still be talked about as the year the Atlantic went mad. This season is now coming to a close, but the active cycle we are now in has only just begun and with a damn big bang too. This kind of activity will probably continue for the next 30-40 years, hopefully not this bad. The citizens of the Gulf coast will continue to be brutally battered by hurricanes as they try to rebuild their shattered lives.

<center>''Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katrina, Lee, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon''</center>

[[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:Fixed to 29 tropical cyclones :-) - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::The season summary says that one of those depressions was subtropical not tropical. So it should be 28 tropical cyclones plus one sub-tropical one? Assuming that depressions can be considered to be cyclones at all (which is dubious). [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All we can do is hope the Atlantic doesn't stay mad in 2006...although I have a REALLY bad feeling about it. I think that it will not have nearly as many storms, but just as many devastating storms and an ACE just as high.

About the only solace I can think of was that the East Coast from the Carolinas northward weren't hit all that bad (from hurricanes at least), despite my predictions of a Katrina-type storm there too, only Hurricane Ophelia was really a factor there.

I counted at least 21 countries affected:

*[[United States]] - Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Tammy, TD22, Wilma

*[[Mexico]] - Bret, Cindy, Emily, Gert, Jose, Stan, Wilma

*[[Cuba]] - Dennis, Rita, Wilma

*[[Grenada]] - Dennis, Emily

*[[Jamaica]] - Dennis, Emily

*[[Haiti]] - Emily, Alpha

*[[Cayman Islands]] - Emily

*[[Bermuda]] - Harvey, Nate

*[[Bahamas]] - Katrina, Rita, Wilma

*[[Canada]] - Katrina, Ophelia, Wilma

*[[Iceland]] - Maria

*[[Norway]] - Maria

*[[Guatemala]] - Stan

*[[El Salvador]] - Stan

*[[Nicaragua]] - Stan, Beta, Gamma

*[[Honduras]] - Stan, Wilma, Beta, Gamma

*[[Costa Rica]] - Stan, Beta, Gamma

*[[Spain]] - Vince, Delta

*[[Portugal]] - Vince

*[[Dominican Republic]] - Alpha

*[[Morocco]] - Delta

*True fish-spinners - Franklin, Irene, TD10, Lee, Philippe, TD19, Epsilon (so far)

[[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::I was counting the countries affected by ''tropical'' cyclones. Extratropical doesn't count. That would exclude Iceland, Norway, Canada, and Morocco. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Extratropical counts in my book; three storms (Maria, Ophelia and Delta) caused loss of life and damage in the extratropical stage, also Ophelia became extratropical just off Nova Scotia while clearly affecting the area... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:I was reading a NOAA document a few months ago about cyclic Atlantic hurricane behavior. Unfortunately I can no longer find the document, but it was really interesting. If you just look at the raw number of hurricanes or number of strong hurricanes, there is little obvious pattern. However if you look at the number of ''Atlantic'' (as opposed to Gulf or Caribbean) hurricanes there is a huge pattern. The stat they gave (which is a little unclear to me) is that in the 18 years from 1947-1964, there were 19 major hurricanes to "hit" (not the same as making landfall) the [[U.S. East Coast]], while in the 18 years from 1965 to 1982, there were none. In a sense the Gulf and Caribbean patterns are the opposite: in the years with reduced Atlantic activity there is increased Caribbean activity (such as Camille, Allen, Frederic, etc.), although the trend here is much less noticable. The interesting point is that the cycle is, in theory, trending back toward more Atlantic hurricanes: powerful storms such as Andrew, Floyd, and Fran in the 1990's follow this pattern. However, the 2004 and 2005 seasons haven't followed this pattern at all: 2004 had 1 major East Coast hurricane and 2 major Gulf/Caribbean ones, while 2005 had three major Gulf/Caribbean ones and no Atlantic ones. So I'd be interested to see what the theorists have to say about the cycle after these last 2 years. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And, to top it all off, a 2005 storm has also '''broken God's finger'''. [[User:80.178.179.17|80.178.179.17]] 08:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:The Cayman Islands is not a country. If you're grouping in Delta's damage of the Canary Islands in with Spain, you should group the Cayman Islands with the UK. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|That's hot]] 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::I forgot about that, although it is a semi-independent colony, while the Canaries are a part of Spain like Hawaii is to the US. As for the God's Finger reference, it would have been more fitting if Epsilon (or the last storm) had broken it. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Another incredible fact about this season. There are 26 weeks in the hurricane season. This year, only ''two'' saw no tropical cyclone activity! '''TWO'''! The week of June 19 and the week of November 6. That means that we had '''''19''''' weeks of nearly unbroken activity. Plus four other weeks. Gaps during the time from June 28-Halloween lasted no longer than 4 days and 12 hours. 19 weeks of nearly solid activity. That is ''incredible''! -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

== Latest storm dissipation ==

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

:The second [[Hurricane Alice]] of 1954 developed on December 30, 1954 and lasted until January 5, 1955. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::And that's assuming you place the cutoff at the year boundary. One could argue that since the season is 6 months long, the 3 months before and 3 months after should be considered part of that same season. This would mean January and February storms would count for the season before - and there have been several such storms. However the only ''official'' data I'm aware of is the NHC best-track ("HURDAT") data, and these list January storms as part of the next year (though it's not clear whether they do so consciously or just by default). [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I think the cutoff has to be at the year boundary because January and February storms are given names off the 2006 list, not the 2005 one. It might not be the most valid choice, but its the choice the NHC/WMO has made. -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::And a fair one at that, since they are '''extremely''' rare. The oceans are too cold and too unstable most of the time. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::If it were any year but 2005, I'd relax, but when I look at Dr. Gray's season summary and see stuff like this: ''As of November 16, no tropical cyclone activity was recorded during the month. Since 1950, 33 of 56 years have had no named storm development during November. Very few seasons have witnessed tropical cyclone development after November 18.'' And immediately 2005 drops 3 storms after the 18th on them... I wouldn't put it past December to have a couple for us. And maybe January, although that would go into the next year's wiki. -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 00:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::Oh yeah, and the other ''official'' data would be the naming system, which would imply a Jan 1 cutoff. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Well wait, what about the Southern-hemisphere seasons? Where do they put their cutoff? Would the convenience be enough for policies to be different for the Northern hemisphere? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Most of them have no cut-offs, they have lists that keep rotating regardless of year, like the Western Pacific and the Central Pacific. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Of course...if a storm is named before midnight Dec 31 it uses a 2005 name,but would a numbered,near-storm-strength 2005 depression still get a 2006 name if it reached name status just after midnight?--Louis E./[e-mail]/[[User:12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::I'm also wondering what would happen with the ACE, would a late December storm that carries over contribute part of its ACE to 2005 and part to 2006? -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Are we the official hurricane source? ==

Look at the charts here at [http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2005-11-29-hurricane-season-ends_x.htm USA Today]. Those look like they came out of the Wikipedia infoboxes! [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:: ([http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/hurricanes180.gif Direct link]) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:Indeed, the way they categorise deaths into direct and indirect. <font color="red">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font>)} 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::There can be little doubt they are taken from wikipedia...or one of the mirrors. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Even the "(potentially more)" under the "Hurricane Katrina" death toll was probably taken straight from the [[Hurricane Katrina]] infobox. I wish the press would cite things like this, just to avoid possible self-reinforcing loops of bad information. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== Back up List ==

[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10268834/] Discusses the issue of back up names. One suggestion is to have another list to the six in rotation and use that for any of the six that exhuast their list. I think it's a good idea. What do you guys think? [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

: ''Alpha might be a candidate for retirement because Tropical Storm Alpha caused flooding that killed 33 people in Haiti and nine in the Dominican Republic in late October.'' Do you really think so? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::I like the idea. I'd be curious to see what lists we could come up with...although I wonder if a male or female name should lead the list. I don't really think Alpha is a good candidate for retirement based on that description though... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::Speaking of which, 33 and 9? That's more deaths than we have recorded for Alpha. I'll go update the Alpha page. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 14:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== November Monthly Summary ==

The November summary is up[http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/NHC/TWSAT], and is a summary for the entire season. Some snippets:

THE 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON IS THE MOST ACTIVE ON RECORD.

TWENTY-SIX NAMED TROPICAL STORMS FORMED...BREAKING THE OLD RECORD

OF 21 SET BACK IN 1993. THIRTEEN STORMS BECAME HURRICANES...

BREAKING THE OLD RECORD OF 12 SET BACK IN 1969. SEVEN OF THE

HURRICANES BECAME MAJOR HURRICANES...CATEGORY THREE OR HIGHER ON

THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE...INCLUDING THREE...KATRINA...

RITA...AND WILMA...WHICH REACHED CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY. THIS IS

THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1851 THAT THREE CATEGORY FIVE STORMS HAVE BEEN

KNOWN TO OCCUR IN A SEASON. THE SEASON ALSO INCLUDED THREE

DEPRESSIONS THAT DID NOT REACH TROPICAL STORM STRENGTH.

IN CONTRAST...BASED ON THE AVERAGE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS...IN AN

AVERAGE SEASON THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN 11 NAMED STORMS...6 HURRICANES

...AND 2 MAJOR HURRICANES.

'''THESE NUMBERS COULD CHANGE...AS CINDY MAY BE UPGRADED TO A HURRICANE'''

'''AT LANDFALL IN LOUISIANA...AND EMILY MAY HAVE BRIEFLY REACHED'''

'''CATEGORY FIVE STRENGTH.'''

KATRINA WILL LIKELY BE RECORDED AS THE MOST DEVASTATING HURRICANE IN

THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES...PRODUCING CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE

AND HUNDREDS OF CASUALTIES IN THE NEW ORLEANS AREA AND ALONG THE

MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST... AND ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES IN SOUTH

FLORIDA. KATRINA WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ESTIMATED 1200

DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES... MAKING IT THE DEADLIEST U. S.

HURRICANE SINCE THE PALM BEACH-LAKE OKEECHOBEE HURRICANE OF

SEPTEMBER 1928. KATRINA ALSO CAUSED AN ESTIMATED $80 BILLION

DOLLARS IN DAMAGE... MAKING IT THE COSTLIEST U. S. HURRICANE ON

RECORD.

ONE DEATH WAS ATTRIBUTED TO OPHELIA...A DROWNING ALONG THE

SOUTHEASTERN COAST OF FLORIDA. THE STORM CAUSED AN ESTIMATED $1.6

BILLION IN THE UNITED STATES...WITH SIGNIFICANT BEACH EROSION NOTED

FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST SOUTHWARD TO THE CENTRAL FLORIDA

COAST.

AROUND THE TIME OF STAN'S EXISTENCE...TORRENTIAL RAINS CAUSED SEVERE

FLASH FLOODS AND MUD SLIDES OVER PORTIONS OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL

AMERICA...INCLUDING GUATEMALA...EL SALVADOR...NICARAGUA... HONDURAS

...AND COSTA RICA. THE ESTIMATED DEATH TOLL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS

WEATHER SYSTEM RANGES FROM 1000-2000. '''AS BEST AS CAN BE DETERMINED

...STAN ITSELF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 80 OF THESE DEATHS.'''

AT THIS TIME...22 DEATHS HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO WILMA.

WILMA CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE IN NORTHEASTERN YUCATAN...INCLUDING

CANCUN AND COZUMEL...AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA. THE HURRICANE ALSO

PRODUCED MAJOR FLOODING OVER WESTERN CUBA. DAMAGE IN THE UNITED

STATES IS ESTIMATED AT $14.4 BILLION.

DELTA TURNED EASTWARD

AND BECAME A VIGOROUS EXTRATROPICAL LOW ON 28 NOVEMBER ABOUT 350

MILES WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE CANARY ISLANDS. THE EXTRATROPICAL LOW

BROUGHT WIND GUSTS OF HURRICANE FORCE TO THE CANARY ISLANDS ON 28

NOVEMBER BEFORE WEAKENING AND MOVING INTO MOROCCO ON 29 OCTOBER.

'''SEVEN DEATHS ON OR NEAR THE CANARY ISLANDS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO THE'''

'''EXTRATROPICAL STAGE OF DELTA.'''

SUMMARY TABLE

NAME DATES MAX WIND DEATHS U.S. DAMAGE

MPH $MILLION

---------------------------------------------------------------

TS ARLENE 8-13 JUN 70 1 MINOR

TS BRET 28-29 JUN 40 1 0

TS CINDY 3-7 JUL 70 1 MINOR

H DENNIS 4-13 JUL 150 41 1840

H EMILY 11-21 JUL 155 5 MINOR

TS FRANKLIN 21-29 JUL 70 0 0

TS GERT 23-25 JUL 45 0 0

TS HARVEY 2-8 AUG 65 0 0

H IRENE 4-18 AUG 105 0 0

TD TEN 13-14 AUG 35 0 0

TS JOSE 22-23 AUG 50 6 0

H KATRINA 23-30 AUG 175 1200 80000

TS LEE 28 AUG - 1 SEP 40 0 0

H MARIA 1-10 SEP 115 0 0

H NATE 5-10 SEP 90 0 0

H OPHELIA 6-17 SEP 85 1 1600

H PHILIPPE 17-24 SEP 80 0 0

H RITA 18-26 SEP 175 6 9400

TD NINETEEN 30 SEP - 2 OCT 30 0 0

H STAN 1-5 OCT 80 100 0

TS TAMMY 5-6 OCT 50 0 MINOR

STD TWENTY-TWO 8-10 OCT 35 0 0

H VINCE 9-11 OCT 75 0 0

H WILMA 15-25 OCT 175 22 14400

TS ALPHA 22-24 OCT 50 20 0

H BETA 26-31 OCT 115 0 0

TS GAMMA 13-20 NOV 55 37 0

TS DELTA 22-28 NOV 70 0 0

TS EPSILON 29 NOV - ?? DEC 70 0 0

--------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE...DATES BASED ON COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME (UTC)

FORECASTER STEWART/BEVEN/AVILA/FRANKLIN/KNABB/PASCH

$$

I suggest we pool our money and give the TPC a nice vacation to somewhere cold and dry. How about two weeks in Tibet? Greenland? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:Trust me, they'll need the break. They will also need a lot of rest this winter as all signs point to a nasty 2006... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like Cindy will upgraded to a hurricane and Emily will be upgraded to Category 5, just as most of us thought they would be!!! We've already seen Dennis have revisions on the post-mortem (involving the track with two more landfalls than first thought) [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disturbed that they're only attributing 80-100 deaths to Stan. Very strange, and potentially a little insulting. Very different from what everyone else seems to think. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:They say the 1000-2500 other deaths were caused by rain not directly from Stan. Also interesting, they confirm the Tammy track into the south (rather than northeast) and make no mention of the northeast flooding as being a result of it. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We can always hope for this active phase to end quickly. Or we can also hope for several of the strongest El Nino's ever recorded (El niño estupendo) if you will, that will cause an Atlantic November report something like this...

THE 20XX ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON WAS THE LEAST ACTIVE ON RECORD... WITH

THREE NAMED STORMS FORMING... BREAKING THE RECORD OF FOUR SET SINCE SATELLITE

OBSERVATIONS BEGAN. THREE TROPICAL STORMS FORMED. NO STORMS BECAME HURRICANES.

THE SEASON ALSO INCLUDED TWO DEPRESSIONS THAT DID NOT REACH STORM STRENGTH...

Now that is my kind of hurricane season. Of course, it probably isn't gonna happen. [[User:Michelle T|Michelle T]] 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Should Delta's article be revised?? The season summary states that Delta become a subtropical storm on the 22nd before becoming a tropical storm on the 23rd. [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

Also did any read the thing on Gamma?? It sais when is was a TD around the leeward islands that it could have been a tropical storm before it degenerated then remerged above Honduras and turn into Gamma! Can you believe that!? [[User:tdwuhs|tduwhs]]

:I'm ... sorry, but I don't have any clue what you're trying to say. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::Gamma part:

THE DEPRESSION CONTINUED ON A WESTWARD TRACK AND MAY HAVE

BRIEFLY REACHED TROPICAL STORM STRENGTH ON 15 NOVEMBER BEFORE

STRONG WESTERLY UPPER-LEVEL SHEAR DISPLACED THE THUNDERSTORM

ACTIVITY TO THE EAST AND CAUSED THE CYCLONE TO DEGENERATE BACK INTO

A TROPICAL WAVE.

::<nowiki>:)</nowiki> Also, tdwuhs, could you try to put a timestamp on your posts by using <nowiki>"~~~~~"</nowiki> from now on? -- [[User:RattleMan|RattleMan]] 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== This season's [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]] poll ==

''From the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article|featured article criteria]]:''

:A featured article should have the following attributes:

:# It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet.

:# It should be '''well written''', '''comprehensive''', '''factually accurate''', '''neutral''', and '''stable'''. :Read [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|''Great writing'']] and [[Wikipedia:The perfect article|''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 [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]];

:# It should comply with the standards set out in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|style manual]] and relevant [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]. These include having:

:#*(a) a succinct [[Wikipedia:Lead section|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]]).

:# It should have [[Wikipedia:Images|images]] where appropriate, with [[Wikipedia:Captions|succinct captions]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.

:# It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use [[Wikipedia:Summary style|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 [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|nominate]] one of our articles for [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] status (or ask for [[Wikipedia:Peer review|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? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|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]]'''. [[User:CrazyC83|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.-- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 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. [[User:Jdorje|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. [[User:Jdorje|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. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk: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. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 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 [[Wikipedia:Footnote3|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. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|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. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

=== [[Hurricane Dennis]] ===

I've begun to change the references to the [[Wikipedia:Footnote3|Footnote3]] format, in preparation for a [[WP:FAC|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. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Two interesting summaries of the season ==

*Jeff Masters: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

*and his source: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/nov2005/

{{unsigned|87.122.9.83|05:21, December 2, 2005 (UTC)}}

==Hurricane Emily's Catgeory==

(HurricaneCraze32)

I know there's been trouble with some reading showing Emily being a Category 5 hurricane not just a Cat.4. What i've always done is make it a 4/5 Hurricane so make it half orange and half red. I'll try it out in the sandbox to see if i can make it.Its only a suggestion. {{unsigned|68.197.30.16|19:02, December 2, 2005 (UTC)}}

:Just wait for the TCR and go with the Category given there. --[[User:Ajm81|Ajm81]] 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::Yes i know.But its just like a sub thing till the category is given. --[[User:HurricaneCraze32]]

:::Wait for the official report. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Heard from local newscast ==

That the NHC/WMO is going to abandon the use of Greek letters by next year. Anything to back that up? --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:I did a quick search on Google News, but did not find anything. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 14:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the Back up list discussin above. [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

:They should have a 7th list in this situation. The names would be human names, but they would be of ambigous gender; Avery, Bobbie, Courtney, Dale, etc. This way it would keep the male/female pattern, yet not have unknown Greek names. No one will likely listen to this, but I think it could work. You wouldn't run into the problem of retiring a greek letter, as you could just have a human name. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::A 7th list sounds a bit aggressive to me. We don't even know how badly we'll need it. I just say add 'Y' and 'Z' names to the list. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

WMO News talks about it:

When the Committee next meets, in March 2006, it will decide which names to

retire and their replacements and will agree on a '''new back-up list'''.

[http://www.wmo.int/news/news.html] --[[User:Ajm81|Ajm81]] 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago in the speculation thread, but no one seemed interested in the subject back then. The reason I can see them considering a change is this (now deleted) line from our wiki page: ''The next three storms this year, if any form, will be named ''Zeta'', ''Eta'', and ''Theta''.'' Precisely what the naming system was meant to avoid, confusion by having similar-sounding storm names. "Category 5 Hurricane Zeta takes aim at the Gulf coast. Meanwhile Tropical storm Eta is drenching Cuba with its rains, and Category 2 Hurricane Theta remains out in the Atlantic, no threat to land... Wait, or was that, Tropical Storm Zeta aiming at the Gulf Coast and Category 5 Eta battering Cuba?" --[[User:PK9|PK9]] 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Delta Editing? ==

Should be revise Delta's article? The NHC November report stated that it became a subtropical storm on the 22 before turning into a tropical storm on the 23rd. So should be revise it? [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

:I'm a bit wary towards that season summary. Let's wait until the official report for that particular storm comes out, since it will likely be much more thorough. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Storm Images ==

There're some good images of most of the storms [http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/index.cgi?page=events&category=Year%202005%20Storm%20Events here]. Some might be useful for editing down on the main page. Others are kind of weird (like TS Delta). There's already a couple of images for Hurricane Epsilon. [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:I've never much cared for the pics on that site. Really good pics are here: [http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Tropical/], [http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html], [http://www5.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hsei/hsei.pl?directive=welcome]. These pages have some of the best pics I've seen. I have tons of good sat-photo websites in my favorites. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 07:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::As long as there are no more infrared images. I hate those. People looking for information want to see cloud patterns. [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 16:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm inclined to agree. We can leave the infrared images of Emily, Katrina, Rita and Wilma on their pages, but they should really be replaced on the season page. Plainly put, they're ugly. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::The image for Franklin is worse. They were changed by Revolution when he (or she or whatever) instituted that table thing for the hurricane track and picture. We did have some good ones. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I like this one of [http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/h2005_franklin.html Franklin]. [http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/h2005_tammy.html Tammy] needs an image. Here's a better one of [http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/h2005_cindy.html Cindy]. [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been fiddling around with the sizes of the image thumbnails and the storm track thumbnails to get them to be equal in height; I've done Arlene to Gert and Irene, but Harvey's image is too tall to do just by changing the size of the thumbnail. That would also be a problem with a few others such as Alpha and Beta. Mostly this is for aesthetic purposes and shouldn't be a major priority, but, if anyone finds images that are wider and less tall, please insert them. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 03:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:I really like this site [http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Tropical/] that Hurr. Eric pointed out, but how to remove the storm's names that are written on top of the satellite image? [[Weatherman90]] (My tilde key has somehow broken)

:: Just a suggestion, but do you think we should get an Image on Wilma at her strongest point? [[User:Bloing|Bloing]]

== Hurricane Epsilon Article Split? ==

Can we split Hurricane Epsilon onto its own page?

It's notable because

# It's a December Hurricane

# It's the 26th named storm of the year, meaning if no letters were skipped, this would be storm Z

# Currently, it's the last tropical storm of the most active season ever

# Currently, it's the highest Greek-lettered storm ever

(3&4 are not the same, even if they are currently functionally equivalent)

I admit if there's another storm, reasons 3&4 are dropped, but that does not exclude reasons 1&2.

&mdash; [[User:132.205.44.134|132.205.44.134]] 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

: Unless it causes some damage, it would be better to leave it as-is. The hurricane is a fish-spinner right now, and there isn't anything particularily interesting that we could say on a daughter article that we couldn't say here. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 07:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::Agreed for now, pending off-season projects (if we decide to break off all the storms onto their own pages). Fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 01:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With the fooling around he has been doing, I am starting to lean towards splitting it off onto its own article... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

* Well, it has now spent more time as a December hurricane than any other, and is the second strongest December hurricane, so it seems sufficiently notable to me. [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 18:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: That is a better pair of reasons than the 4 originally listed. However as [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] said fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. If there were one or two more records then I would think that there is enough to make it notable. Anyone know what the records are for # ACE for a storm that has persisted into December, and # duration for a November storm. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The original 4 reasons are crap. At this present time Epsilon is not notable enough for an article. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:It's as notable as [[Hurricane Faith]] I'd say. Which is to say...not very. Less notable than several other 2005 storms which don't currently have an article. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: Agreed; I suppose eventually we'll make more articles later for the others. Notability isn't a big hurdle for something to have an article on Wikipedia. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

: (To Revolución, not Jdorje) Please don't post "xyz is crap", it's only inflammatory and isn't constructive. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

: (To Revolución) The original 4 reasons are crap? The ''last'' is notable in many respects. Why do you say it's crap? Last man on the moon, last person executed. As is the thing that tops things off, like the person who beat Ken Jennings, ...

:The press and public certainly think it notable as the last storm of an extreme season. [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:: How do you know that this is going to be the last storm of the season? --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to make a sandbox article at [[Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Epsilon-test]] and see what you all think...just in case. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:Great Idea, Agreed! [[User:Weatherman90|Weatherman90]] 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: With the personaltiy of the NHC responses, I could see this getting Featured Article if it's presented well. Hopefully a journalist or two gets the same kind of idea and talks about this storm's effects on the NHC forecasters. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Now there's some original thinking! Instead of saying "wow it's a long-lived fishspinner", focus more on the frustration of the NHC. If you could build the article around those, I'd support it. :) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::::That test page is a perfect place to write such up. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:Looks good to me. [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::Agreed with Golbez. Let's do something different. Give good info on the storm but also include how baffled the NHC was by this storm and how frustrated they were trying to forcast it. I tried to do that for Hurricane Andrew's section in my article [[Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present]] but someone changed most of it to a copy-paste section from the NHC's report. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:::For now, the sandbox article seems short of what AySz88, Golbez and Eric are talking about here - the NHC's advisories. If anything, try to phrase the article around the NHC and [[Lixion Avila|Dr. Avila]]'s advisories (the poor man!). <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font> [[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

::::The sandbox article is the perfect places to make the changes!!! [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== Season article summaries ==

From [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1997_Pacific_hurricane_season/Archive_1|here]]:

:''Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.''

I find that the way ''every'' TC season article is introduced with the dates does not make for interesting reading. In a sense this is a question of interesting writing versus good reference writing; however, to qualify as a featured article (for instance) both need to be satisfied. I wanted to use the [[2004 AHS]] for a featured article in the [[Portal:Tropical Cyclones]] (see [[Portal:Tropical_Cyclones/Featured_article/2005-50|here]]), and although it's my belief that the article summary should just be copied directly to use for the featured-article summary, this paragraph is just too tedious to include (so I skipped it and took the second paragraph). Now, my suggestion is that - for all single-season articles - this dating paragraph be moved down into the newly-created first section of the article, which can be called "Season dates" or something to that effect. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

: I had gone ahead and swapped the paragraphs - I didn't see any reason not to - but E. Brown reverted it with "''this belongs at the beginning, it's always been formatted that way''". :/ (I suppose he hadn't seen this yet.) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::Well...he's right, it is a standard that that paragraph goes first...look at all 150+ AHS articles and you'll find it's that way. If it is to be changed we must come to a consensus first. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Agreed fully. I reverted it for the reasons Tom has just stated. And because it looked sloppy. There was no transition between the two paragraphs the way you guys re-ordered them. Jdorje, I am a full advocate for 2004AHS as a featured article in the tropical cyclones portal. That article is so well formatted. The information is well stated. Word economy is good, so there's less chatter. One or two more pics could hurt. And not I DO NOT mean ten or twelve. I mean one or two. Then buff up the references section and it will be perfect. I think this article should have been modeled on 2004, but apparently others thought differently. ''Sigh'' -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 07:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>doesn't remember stating anything* :) I do agree, though, that the intro paragraphs are a bit technical and uninteresting. Considering how loooong these articles are, they need a good intro to keep people's attention. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk:Tomf688|talk]]}} 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::The boring part is brief. It gets interesting pretty quickly, that's my take on it. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::But for a featured article (a [[WP:FA]], not a TC portal featured article) there shouldn't be a boring part at all. I still say this rote-and-repetitive listing of dates does not belong in the summary, but should be put in the first section (not the way AySz88 did it, but actually in a new subsection). [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the 2004 season article is still set up to be next week's TC featured article. I can tell you why it didn't make [[WP:FA]] however: because, like the 2005 season article but to a lesser degree, it's too long and boring. However it's still a good article so I took the second intro paragraph, fixed it up a bit, and used it for the featured-article text. See [[:Category:Tropical_cyclone_featured_articles]]. Now it's time to choose an article for the following week (I think we should keep them 2 weeks ahead at least...though I wonder how long I can just go on picking them myself before others will start to take an interest). [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 19:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:Just because it's long and uninteresting to some should not be limiting factors. It's the quality of the article, not the quantity or the subject, being judged. Just look at the list of featured articles in the link you gave. How many of those subjects do you find fascinating? DNA repair, several Latin names I can't spell or pronounce...come on! It's the quality, not the subject. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::Exactly: it's the quality, not the subject. The subject here is already interesting; we just need to make sure the quality of the article is such that it stays interesting. Giving trivial information in the introduction does not make for interesting reading. And the specific "official" dates at which the season starts and stops is indeed trivial: for older hurricane seasons I suspect it's not even accurate to put it in, since there were no official dates at that time. Everyone intuitively knows that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season occurred during 2005; we don't have to spend a paragraph explaining it - at least not in the introduction. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== New Footnote Formatting ==

The new footnote formatting was integrated by [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]]'s bot ([[User:SEWilcoBot|SEWilcoBot]]). However, I feel it is EXTREMELY confusing to the average reader. Also, some of the textual footnote numbers do not match up with the numbers listed at the bottom of the page. For example, in the section about Tropical Storm Delta, the archive is listed as footnote "62". Go to the bottom of the page, and it is listed as "63". {{Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} &#x2605; 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:Definitely agree, it looked 100% better before the change. --[[User:Ajm81|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. [[User:CrazyC83|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. {{Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} &#x2605; 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. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::What exactly do you mean by "direct link from the footnote"? {{Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}} &#x2605; 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 <nowiki>{{subst:Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature}}</nowiki> to reduce the load on the Wikipedia servers. Thanks. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font>^{{[[User talk: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. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 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. --[[User:Ajm81|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.) [[User:C-randles|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.) [[User:C-randles|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? --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I just realized why there are so many footnotes now. There are several that are listed multiple times. --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:: Why is your browser reloading the page? It shouldn't be. What browser are you using? --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 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 --[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 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. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

'''New Footnote style'''

#<s><font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font>^{<font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font>} 12:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)</s>

#

#

'''Old in-line links'''

#[[User:C-randles|crandles]] 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

#{{Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature_nosign}} &#x2605; 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

#[[User:Keith Edkins|Keith Edkins]] 20:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

#[[User:Ajm81|Ajm81]] 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

#[[User:WolFox|<b><font color="#4169E1">Wol</font><font color="#008080">F</font><font color="#00A86B">ox</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:WolFox|<font color="#FDE910">★</font><font color="#FF2400">Talk</font><font color="#FDE910">★</font>]]) ^{[[Special:Contributions/WolFox|<font color="#991199">Contribs</font>]]} 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

#[[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Limited number of footnotes'''

#[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (make the "advisories on..." links the way they were, takes away 30ish of them)

#<font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font>^{<font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font>} 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

#[[User:Mark J|Mark J]] 17:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Agree with AySz88.

# [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

#

'''Old-style when current, reformat later'''

#[[User:CrazyC83|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)

#[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|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. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Hurricane Epsilon picture ==

The Hurricane Epsilon storm track ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Epsilon_2005_track.png Image:Epsilon 2005 track.png]) hasn't been updated since 2 December 9PM UTC. The time is now 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC). Shouldn't the picture be updated with recent movements? <font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font>^{<font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font>} 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We should get a picture of the storm itself as well. There is a great picture of it on nnvl.org recent pic. Very fine quality and good should form for Epsilon. [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

== NHC giant picture ==

If you look closely at the NHC giant wall [http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=48357] board, it shows Tropical Storm Cindy upgraded to 75 mph, hence Hurricane Cindy. It also shows Wilma upgraded to 185 mph. (It hasn't changed Emily yet; they must still be debating if it is going to be restrengthened). [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:Interesting. It could just be tenative, but I'm glad Cindy and Wilma were upped. I'm personally a little disappointed that Emily was not a Cat. 5, but you can't win every time. Good find. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::Agreed, those are probably tentative. They are probably still debating them (including Emily - I am sure some in the NHC are saying it should be 160, others 155). Emily's central pressure of 929mb may be holding them back, although Category 5 storms with pressures in the 930s are not unheard of. They should be noted in brief on their articles, but no major renaming should be done until they become official (i.e. Tropical Storm Cindy references should remain such, not changed to Hurricane Cindy, until officially released). [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of relieved. Because Wilma at 882 and just at 175 I thought that was odd I'm glad they upped her to 185. [[User:tdwuhs|tdwuhs]]

:::Again, these are quite tentative and we shouldn't take this as solid proof until the post season reports and best track are out, regardless of this particular map's educated lean. The NHC are experts but not infallible. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:The sad thing is that they already have Zeta on the board. You think the staffers there are a *tiny* bit gunshy?[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I think I remember seeing Zeta on the board from ''way'' back, so they weren't that far off. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

==Records==

I notice in the records section that the records for the most storms forming within the season before the end of a month (e.g. October or September). Shouldn't it also be noted that although 2005 may have had the most storms forming before the end of September (17) it does not hold the record for the most storms during September (which would be 8 in 2002)?[[User:72.27.29.45|72.27.29.45]] 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question: Does 2005 hold the record for most hurricanes in a season with 14 or '''13''', since Episilon became a hurricane ''outside'' the season? -[[User:PK9|PK9]] 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

: 14. Officially storms that form up till [[December 31]] are part of the season, so, yeah. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font> [[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== Timeline Atlantic Hurricanes ==

Tried to create a timeline on the basis of hurricane season 2005. Many other seasons can be added. The black lines in color bars indicate the landfall. Please comment if this way of depicting the hurricanes is worth. --[[User:Saharadesertfox|Saharadesertfox]] 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

{{tl|Timeline_Atlantic_Hurricanes}}

:'''Do NOT change this template as it strecthes the screen. Leave it as a link.''' <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|讨论]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|extra]]</font> [[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:I like it, but it isn't terribly informative as it stands. If it were changed to show varying intensities then it might be more useful and perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: Also, beware that the colors might [[Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#Overcoloration|change on you]] sometime soon.... --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:: No Problem, will add TD and TS and the varying of intensities during the storm. Can anybody help on where to get the data of the varying during the storms. Thanx --[[User:Saharadesertfox|Saharadesertfox]] 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:::How about adding tropical storms to the template? <font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font>^{<font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font>} 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Agreed with both Cuivienen and Thelb. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Jose, Lee, Tammy, and Gamma's missing satellite images ==

These four storms look so lonely with only their paths shown. Is someone by any chance ever going to add their satellite images (at least what can be found that conforms to WP's copyright policy)? [[User:128.138.96.35|128.138.96.35]] 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. I'd do it now but it's midnight here. I'm tired and I have school tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow afternoon. It's something that definately needs to be done regardless. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::[http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/tropical_cyclones/tc05/ATL/ Here] is an archive of the all the images that appear on the Navy site. Once you get into the storms, /ir/geo/1km_bw images are the ones that you see by default when you select storms on the left on [http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html this] page`. I tried searching other areas, but they only had the storms as Depressions, not looking good at all. -- [[User:RattleMan|RattleMan]] 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== Unbelieveable Statistic ==

I've posted this in several places yet it has been ignored.

There are 26 weeks in the hurricane season. This year, only ''two'' saw no tropical cyclone activity! '''TWO'''! The week of June 19 and the week of November 6. That means that we had '''''19''''' weeks of nearly unbroken activity. Plus four other weeks. Gaps during the time from June 28-Halloween lasted no longer than 4 days and 12 hours. 19 weeks of nearly solid activity. That is ''incredible''!

I think this should be added either to this article or the statistics article. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 13:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:WOW! Very interesting indeed. [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] 14:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:And with the season in overtime again, maybe that will be unbroken through December? [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 16:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::Nah, the last storm is going to dissipate on [[December 8]] and I'm going to win the betting pool. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Agreed with Jdorje's ''first'' sentence. Jdorje, let's not rub it in now! Should this statistic be added to one of the two articles afforementioned? -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== Epsilon boxes ==

Now that the storm pictures have been put in a box, the writing is squashed. I have tried to put it in a table, but to no success. Could I have some help at the bottom of [[User:Thelb4/Sanbox2|my sandbox]]? <font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font>^{<font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font>} 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:Now the Current Storm Status and Recent Timeline text are running into the rest of the text. It looks worse than before, plus the image is gone. Thanks whoever did that! Why not try to keep it the same as the rest of the article? [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::[[Image:NoEpsilonproblem.JPG|right|150px]] I see no problem. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I think you're looking at a cached version of the page. It had lots of whitespace in IE, but that's fixed now I think. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't use IE, so the revision after me was messed up. The screenshot posted here is crossing between two sections, btw. Also the image that replaced the previous one was horrible! [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:I dont know why people keep changing Epsilon's image back to that ugly one with the orange lines. The original one was 10x better. [[User:Weatherman90|Weatherman90]] 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::Always use one at maximum intensity, or at least try to use one. That is at max intensity. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Huh? There is no such rule, because if there was, half the images wouldn't be up there. Besides, the one I put up WAS at maximum intensity. If you spent half as long looking at it as you did messing it up, you would've known that. Please stop putting the ugly images up there. You are forgetting the whole point that this is an encyclopedia, and people want to see the nicest images possible. [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Maximum intensity = 4 Dec 2005, 11 am AST = 85mph/979mbar. Secondly - [[WP:CIV]] and [[WP:NPA]]. Please read those two - you are coming very close to violating these policies with that message. Your pic is from the 6th of December - two days AFTER max intensity. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 02:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Look at the date aquired. It says December 4th. December 6th is the date they posted it. Again, there is no such rule about the images, and you should not make up ones. [[User:Good kitty|Good kitty]] 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

: Moved to [[User talk:Good kitty|Good kitty's talk]]. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Bleh ==

:"Another incredible fact about the 2005 season was the near complete lack of lull periods common in most seasons. In the 26 weeks of the hurricane season, only ''two'' saw no activity.... That means that 2005 saw '''''19''''' weeks of near solid activity!"

OMG I think I just wet myself with excitement. This trivia is so delicious, so incredible, why don't we add some more bold and italics, just to emphasise how incredible it all is? Or not. Please stay away from bold and italics in future. Other (much better) articles get by fine without them. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and don't use exclamation marks. Just because the article's contributors find hurricanes very exciting, it doesn't mean the readers will. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 06:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

: You could always change something like that yourself when you notice it, instead of being nasty and insulting towards all of us. I've changed it now. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::I do think it's something that needed to be said, though, snark or not. This talk page and a lot of the editors on it are on their own hurricane planet. There is a line between "interested" and "over-invested" in a topic, and I think many of the editors crossed that line on like June 2. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|That's hot]] 07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I do agree that Eric's passage is a bit overboard, yes. <font color="darkred">[[User:NSLE|NSLE]]</font> _{(<font color="darkorange">[[User_talk:NSLE|T]]</font>+<font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]]</font>+[[WP:CVU|<font color="grey">CVU</font>]])} 07:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. I don't think there are any other examples of such a tone in the article (though I haven't combed through it), nor anyone advocating it. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 07:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that if I thought it was an isolated example of article badness, I would have fixed it myself. I wrote my messages here in the hope that whoever wrote that bit would take note. I'm sure there are some excellent contributors to this article and I did not intend to paint them all with one brush. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

: It you are talking about other things in this article, it might be helpful to give an example or two. (If you aren't, never mind.) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::Mark, why are just standing here insulting my edit? I hate people who just stand there and whine and insult the authors of articles, sections and edits who did much more work than you did. Instead why don't you do something about it. Someone (perhaps you) changed it to a version filled with bad grammer, incomplete sentences and emotionless periods. We've got to have some emotion here, otherwise, readers are ''guaranteed'' to get bored out of their minds. Notice I put italics there. What do those italics mean? They mean empheses. Why do we consider emphesis a bad thing. We want people to feel why this is important. The best way to do that is with interesting phrasing of sentences and use of emphesis. Without it, the lack of emotion betrays the importance of what's being stated. -- [[User: E. Brown|Hurricane Eric]] - ''[[User talk: E. Brown|my dropsonde]]'' - <small>''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''</small> 14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:::The use of emphases to convey emotion to the readers is dubious at best. First off, why are we trying to draw an emotional response from the readers? The [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]] article, which deals with an unarguably more important and damaging natural disaster (~200k people killed), uses no bold or italics to emphasise the very human element of that event. Here is an example from the opening section of that article:

::::"In May 2005, scientists reported that the earthquake itself lasted close to ten minutes when most major earthquakes last no more than a few seconds; it caused the entire planet to vibrate at least a few centimetres. It also triggered earthquakes elsewhere, as far away as Alaska."

:::That conveys all of the relevant facts in a readable and interesting manner, without using terms like "incredible" or emphases like bold, italics or exclamation marks. We're trying to inform our readers, not entertain them. As for readers getting bored by dry language, if they have managed to reach this section by first reading the preceding 7000 words, then we can assume they aren't bored by the topic. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I agree with Mark. Encyclopedias aren't made to make things sound incredible or amazing or to capture the reader's attention with exclamation points, emphasis, and bolded words. Encyclopedias are designed to provide information, not entertain people. [[User:Bob rulz|bob rulz]] 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Lee ==

Lee's report has come out. [[User:SargeAbernathy|SargeAbernathy]] 15:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:No real surprises from Lonely Lee. Just a moment in the spotlight for him (finally, he was stuck in Katrina's shadows the whole time) with Epsilon gone just in time for the report... [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Footnotes ==

Some footnotes are missing, out of order, and/or misnumbered...again. I don't have time to fix it, so somebody that can, please. -- [[User:Super-Magician|Super-Magician]] ([[User talk:Super-Magician|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Super-Magician|contribs]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&amp;user=Super-Magician count]</span>) &#x2605; 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Reopening ToC Discussion ==

Because no one seems to have noticed recent comments under the previous ToC section, here's a new section. We have a much-improved template for the ToC, one that does not remove any of the information provided in the current ToC but is much more vertically compact (which is the primary issue). It was created by AySz88.

{{[[Template:ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason|ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason]]}}

- [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a few things left on my todo (shift links from buttons to names, make code more like {{tl|Saffir-Simpson small}}, perhaps templatize buttons, and maybe make links only to within 2005AHS). Of course, that does not preclude including it in the article while improving it at the same time. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[User_talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:I was considering adding links directly to the pages for Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Stan, Wilma, Alpha, Beta and Gamma to it on the storm names, though it might be better to simply make the internal page link on the storm name. Button templates sound like an unnecessary complication, IMO, although they would make it easier to replicate such a ToC for future seasons. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:: The link should be to the section of this article, not to an external article; that's the point of the table of contents. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])} 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate it.

Here's why: I don't see why we can't use the more simple, easier TOC that Wikipedia by default uses. It is easier to click on which storm you want to go to with the regular TOC. another "solution in search of a problem" in my opinion. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] ''([[User talk:Revolución|talk]])'' 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

==Endnote==

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