Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

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

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12

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

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

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

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

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

November

Week 1

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

I'd say that we've got a relatively long quiet stretch going -- 6 days since the final report on Beta Route56 02:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

92L.INVEST

AoI:10W4A: Lesser Ant.

8 AM Discussion:

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

11:30 AM TWO:

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

And the recon plan for tomorrow:

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

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

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

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

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

Brother Gamma may be preparing to pledge the Greek Letter Society.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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

92L.INVEST

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

10:30 PM TWO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch was active in the Caribbean seven years ago this week. It's not too late for another major hurricane. Good kitty 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

But the latest major hurricane ever was Lenny in 1999 just 10 days after today. We're reaching the tail end of the potential for dangerous hurricanes. On an unrelated note, the northwestern Caribbean was mentioned by the NHC in the most recent outlook. -- 69.86.16.61 23:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

It would be cool if some techno/hurricane freaks make a composite of all the storms of 2005 in one image of the entire Atlantic Basin. That would be a CROWD! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS OVER THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA HAVE DIMINISHED. AN AREA OF DISORGANIZED CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS IS LOCATED OVER THE SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE ADJACENT LAND AREAS. DEVELOPMENT...IF ANY...SHOULD BE SLOW TO OCCUR.

Looks like Beta reincarnated?? tdwuhs

Areas of Interest

AoI:11W1A: Honduras

Looks like some activity is occuring right off the Hondurian coast. Something to watch over the next few days. -- RattleMan 07:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's harder for storms to develop in November, there isn't much water for it to work with and pulling a Lenny requires the absolute strangest conditions (but what's left to see in 2005???) CrazyC83 20:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

AN AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND THUNDERSTORMS CONTINUES OVER THE
SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE ADJACENT LAND AREAS. 
DEVELOPMENT...IF ANY...SHOULD BE SLOW TO OCCUR.

11:30 AM TWO, waiting for 5:30 (or is it 4:30? I forgot) -- RattleMan 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH MONDAY.

Serious lull time,folks...is Pledge Week over for the Greek Letter Society?--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully. --Revolución (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The tropics were quiet, but today was a busy day in the Midwest and Northeast... CrazyC83 05:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED TRHOUGH FRIDAY.

After all the records for intensity,is this season gunning to set records for inactivity too?...I suppose there's no record of consecutive flatlined Outlooks.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 20:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

AoI:11W1B: GoM

Some convection has fired and persisted for most of the day today (Sunday) in the Gulf of Mexico. NHC calls it the "STRONGEST OF ALL THE WAVES IN THE ATLC BASIN TONIGHT". There's lots of shear in the area...but since nothing major in the Atlantic basin has been happening for a while now, I thought I'd note this. -- RattleMan 06:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Week 2

It's like we have waited all season for this [silence]... CrazyC83 01:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign in earlier)

AoI:11W2A: Tropical Atlantic

There's this interesting spot of convection north of Puerto Rico, but the NHC doesn't seem too concerned about it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What direction is that blob moving? CrazyC83 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also some other interesting convection in the southwestern Caribbean, down by where Beta formed. [3] -- John, 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This disturbance appears to be dissipating, and no wonder: it just went through a bank of 60 knot wind shear! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

93L.INVEST

AoI:11W2B: Caribbean System

Might have to be watched. From latest TWO:

AN AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS HAS DEVELOPED OVER PANAMA AND THE ADJACENT SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA. SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SYSTEM IS POSSIBLE OVER THE NEXT DAY OR SO AS IT DRIFTS NORTHWARD.

The season is not over! Hurricanehink 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Enh, well, this thing's a long way from being Tropical Depression 27. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No kidding...only a few can develop in November. It's just too unstable at the upper levels. CrazyC83 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any more hurricanes. If any more storms form I think they'll be tropical storms or tropical depressions. --Revolución (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am assuming that there will be one more system, down in the Carribean where this system currently is. The SSTs remain fairly warm there, and all that is needed for a storm to form is for the shear to relax. The current NHC Tropical Atlantic Outlook reads:

1130 AM EST SAT NOV 12 2005

A BROAD AREA OF LOW PRESSURE CENTERED OVER PANAMA IS PRODUCING
EXTENSIVE CLOUDINESS AND SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS FROM
NORTHWESTERN COLOMBIA WESTWARD OVER MOST OF THE SOUTHWESTERN
CARIBBEAN SEA... PANAMA... COSTA RICA... AND EASTERN NICARAGUA. 
SHOWER ACTIVITY HAS INCREASED AND BECOME SLIGHTLY BETTER ORGANIZED
TODAY... AND CONDITIONS COULD GRADUALLY BECOME MORE FAVORABLE FOR
SOME ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR AS THE SYSTEM DRIFTS NORTHWARD
OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. ...

So there is a chance that something may form there soon. A hurricane? That remains possible, but as the waters cool (and even in the Carribean they are cooling) that becomes more and more unlikely. But we will see. This has been an odd hurricane season. A November hurricane would not be "out of character" for it. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Recon Plan for Tomorrow:

ATLANTIC REQUIREMENTS
1. NEGATIVE RECONNAISSANCE REQUIREMENTS.
2. OUTLOOK FOR SUCCEEDING DAY: POSSIBLE LOW LEVEL INVEST
NEAR 11.5N 81.5W AT 14/2000Z.

-- RattleMan 17:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

93L.INVEST

It's now an Invest [[4]] tdwuhs

Hmmm...Could this develop? In November? But then again, it's the 2005 season... -- RattleMan 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Every season since 1997 except 2000 and 2002 had November activity. It's more likely than not that we'll see another storm or two. -- 69.86.16.61 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2003 didn't have November activity either. Perhaps you were looking at Nicholas, who just managed to crawl into November 1 as an extratropical depression. That doesn't count! Anyway, historical records mean little. This season above all others has proved that. Remember, 1995, with all its activity, was quiet all November. This invest, by the way, seems to have lost most of its shower activity. Their's no rain in this thing! Also, 20 and 30 knot shear looms just north of it. November is not only the newest, but least active month of the season. I believe the most storms to form in November is 2 or 3. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't see this developing. All eyes should be on 94L...then again it is the 2005 season, and storms have fooled us on every move... CrazyC83 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay, 2003 didn't have November activity, but I think December activity can count as November activity. -- 69.86.16.61 14:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's now gone from the Navy site. -- RattleMan 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

27L.NONAME

AoI:11W2C: Windward Islands

Meanwhile, now that 93L is out, there's another area to the East of the Windward Islands that looks good. [5] TWD says "TROPICAL WAVE LOCATED ABOUT 300 NM E OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS ALONG 56W/57W S OF 15N MOVING W 10-15 KT. THE WAVE CONTINUES TO DISPLAY A FAIRLY WELL-DEFINED LOW-LEVEL CIRCULATION IN SATELLITE IMAGERY BUT REMAINS EMBEDDED WITHIN A WESTERLY SHEAR ENVIRONMENT." -- RattleMan 20:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

94L.INVEST

A new invest has JUST popped up associated with this AoI. Wow, two invests in one night. -- RattleMan 02:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A little late in the season for tropical waves ain't it? NHC says the upper atmosphere isn't very kind right now over this system. It is indeed currently over an area with 30 knot shear. That said, data from CIMSS says that wind shear has been decreasing by as much as 20 knots in the waters ahead of the wave. [6]. And it also looks pretty impressive: [7]. Looks can be decieving though... -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

10:30 PM TWO:

AN AREA OF LOW PRESSURE ALONG A TROPICAL WAVE IS CENTERED ABOUT 100
MILES EAST-SOUTHEAST OF BARBADOS. THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN PRODUCING A
CONCENTRATED AREA OF THUNDERSTORM ACTIVITY NEAR THE DEVELOPING
CIRCULATION CENTER DURING THE PAST FEW HOURS. UPPER-LEVEL WINDS
APPEAR MARGINALLY CONDUCIVE FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT... AND IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT THIS SYSTEM COULD BECOME A TROPICAL DEPRESSION DURING
THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS IT MOVES WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A TROPICAL DEPRESSION FORMS... THIS
SYSTEM COULD BRING SOME GUSTY WINDS AND LOCALLY HEAVY RAINS TO
PORTIONS OF THE WINDWARD AND LEEWARD ISLANDS OVERNIGHT TONIGHT AND
ON SUNDAY. 

-- RattleMan 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's one that should develop. Not likely into a monster, but at least into TD27 and possibly Tropical Storm Gamma. Now don't rush into making articles... CrazyC83 04:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Grasshopper, the tropics are fickle. Nothing is anywhere close to certain. I've seen waves spoken more highly of than this one and end up amounting to nothing. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

000 
WONT41 KNHC 140101 
DSAAT 
SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT 
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL 
800 PM EST SUN NOV 13 2005 

SATELLITE IMAGERY... RADAR DATA... AND SURFACE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE 
THE LARGE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM CENTERED OVER THE SOUTHEASTERN 
CARIBBEAN SEA ABOUT 85 MILES WEST-SOUTHWEST OF ST. LUCIA HAS BECOME 
BETTER ORGANIZED THIS EVENING. THUNDERSTORM ACTIVITY HAS INCREASED 
NEAR AND JUST TO THE EAST OF THE CENTER... AND ST. LUCIA REPORTED A 
SUSTAINED WIND OF 33 MPH DURING THE PAST HOUR. UPPER-LEVEL WINDS 
ARE ALSO GRADUALLY BECOMING A LITTLE MORE FAVORABLE. IF 
THUNDERSTORMS CONTINUE TO DEVELOP CLOSER TO THE CIRCULATION CENTER 
...THEN A TROPICAL DEPRESSION COULD FORM LATER TONIGHT OR MONDAY AS 
THE SYSTEM MOVES WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH. INTERESTS IN 
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA AND ADJACENT LAND AREAS SHOULD CLOSELY 
MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. 

FORECASTER STEWART 

$$

Getting interesting! Hurricanehink 01:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, TD27 might be up by 10 Eastern. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 01:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the Atlantic wants to stay ahead of the West Pacific. Oh, Toto I don't think we'll ever get back to Kansas. tdwuhs

The West Pacific has a TD active right now that would tie things up again, but, if this becomes Gamma, the Atlantic will stay in front. It really will be a huge event if the Atlantic outstrips the West Pacific this year. -- 69.86.16.61 02:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 27

Hello, Tropical Depression 27! [8] -- RattleMan 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ain't over til it's over! God, this is unbelievable. Tropical Depression 27. T-W-E-N-T-Y-S-E-V-E-N! I can't believe it. God Almighty this season is unbelievable! It just keep spittin' em out. After that last Invest failed to develop, I thought that the season may have been over. I hope this one is docile, we can't take another hurricane. Neither can anyone in the Caribbean. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Time is on our side, but this being the 2005 season, anything is possible. I see this becoming Tropical Storm Gamma, but it will have to really start strengthening to make its way to hurricane status. CrazyC83 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet, the NHC's 5-day cone (not overwhelmingly reliable, but still) makes it a hurricane on Saturday. And nothing but landslide-prone developing nations in front of it.  :( --DavidK93 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Until it gets out of that westerly shear though, which is expected to last for 24 hours or more, I don't see it becoming much. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Though Arlene was in the same situation with a few variables off but manage to get her act together. Being 2005 I think we should be prepared for a storm but hope for it to be mild. tdwuhs

Agreed - after all, the GFDL has consistently forecasted this to go to Category 4 strength... CrazyC83 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

GFDL has a history of being slightly overzealous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics

The Project

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

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

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

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

---

October 17

• 1st Storm - 132 days behind
• 2nd Storm - 43 days behind
• 3rd Storm - 25 days behind
• 4th Storm - 2 days ahead
• 5th Storm - 11 days ahead
• 6th Storm - 13 days ahead
• 7th Storm - 14 days ahead
• 8th Storm - 12 days ahead
• 9th Storm - 13 days ahead
• 10th Storm - 1 day ahead
• 11th Storm - 4 days ahead
• 12th Storm - 2 days behind
• 13th Storm - 6 days ahead
• 14th Storm - 4 days ahead
• 15th Storm - 9 days ahead
• 16th Storm - 9 days ahead
• 17th Storm - 10 days ahead
• 18th Storm - 1 day behind
• 19th Storm - 20 days ahead
• 20th storm - 17 days ahead
• 21st storm - 29 days ahead
• 22nd storm - 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Zo, I don't remember ever removing your post. I don't think I ever saw the post. This is the only edit of mine of this section that I could find [9]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaps

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

Here are the gaps we've had without any storms. Total time as of 0300Z Nov. 14: 61 days, 16 hours (38.6% of the time!). Only 2 1/2 weeks remain in the season. --Golbez 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC), CrazyC83 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC); Route56 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• NHC stops monitoring Beta on Oct 31 0300Z
• TD27 formed: Nov 14 0300Z.
  • A gap of 14 days.

Button Bar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Already Inserted in every article. Jumps up and down like a hyperactive bunny. I hope there are know display issues. It is at the bottom of the articles, It seemed too gaudy for the top. It is at the top of 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season and the bottom. You can see where it links to here [10].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.144.5.2, how does this look?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By some strange glitch in the wikipedia software

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just tried something out - User:AySz88/Sandbox. Needs to be fleshed out more, and I haven't put things into a template format (How do you sandbox templates?). AySz88^-^ 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, right now, there are two rows of buttons along with a concise key, which compresses the Saffir-Simpson template into five boxes with tooltips (minus the storm surge information). Feel free to suggest improvements and help out with the code. There might need to be something to prompt users to use tooltips. AySz88^-^ 03:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Current contents of User:AySz88/Sandbox -

Bias-declaring Userbox brainstorm

Domain

This does not change:

• What is allowed in userspace (as text or as substituted userboxes)
• Lists of userboxes
  • Clarification: Is this saying that userbox stacks are allowed (agree) or that lists of userboxes (in userspace) are allowed in Wikipedia space (also agree, but there is dispute). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yikes, I didn't notice this comment. >.< It means that the issue of lists of userboxes in userspace is not discussed here, because I'm not really familiar with the issues around that. --AySz88^-^ 06:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Various arguments for userboxes

• Expression of editing interest, languages, and other things helpful to the project
• Self-expression, jokes
• Community interaction and finding other editors with similar interests
• Community cohesiveness
• Decor

Various arguments against userboxes

• Server strain (already revealed to be not an issue)
• Template namespace designed only for encyclopedia material (?)
• May appear to be endorsed by Wikipedia? (??)
• Possible attacks and trolling

...for POV userboxes

• Public knowledge of biases
• Acknowledgement and discovery of an editor's own biases
• Self-expression
• Shows editing interests (?)

...against POV userboxes

(See Jimbo's explanation)

• Abuse of POV boxes (WhatLinksHere/categories being a vector for vote-stacking/POV pushing)
• Identification with factions, divisiveness / impression in participants or viewers that bias is encouraged
• Advocacy, encouraging biases ("...make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV")
• Creation of uncivil atmosphere / inflammatory boxes / poor first impressions, taking things personally, and other bad feelings
• Lack of explanations for POVs ("Bumper sticker"-ness) (?)
• POV in userspace is undesirable (?)
• POV in Template namespace is undesirable (?)
• Template namespace designed only for encyclopedia material (?)

Reasoning

• Objects in the Template namespace space are generally assumed to be used for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It is permissible to have templates which further the goals of the encyclopedia in the Template namespace, no matter which namespace the template is intended for. (Precedent: {{proposed}}, {{style}}, and many others for the Wikipedia namespace, {{userpage}}, {{Pic of the day}} in User namespace)
  • Templates are somewhat more strict than userspace because, since templates are obviously meant to be included on many pages, templates are examples of what should and is desired to appear in those pages.
  • If userboxes are considered unrestricted in userspace, only boxes in the Template space may be moderated.
• In user space, things which demonstrate offerings or interests in the encyclopedia project should be encouraged. (Of course, not all things in userpages must promote workings in the encyclopedia - user space is a location where things beneficial to the community, but do little to nothing for the encyclopedia, are allowed.)
  • Babel, WikiProjects boxes, declarations of interests, etc. should be expressly permitted in userpages. These promote the function of Wikipedia.
  • Users of userboxes should be aware that the contents of their userbox may change.
  • Declarations of biases on user pages, if they have the intent to reduce systemic bias in encyclopedia matters or to draw attention towards personal bias, should be encouraged, as they encourage NPOV.
    • These declarations should have the effect of promoting the goal of NPOV in Wikipedia.
    • These declarations must be careful to neither be inflammatory nor solicit people to take up the same bias.
    • The userboxes should not place userpages in categories (there is no obvious positive use for such categories).
    • Especially, declarations of bias should be careful to not promote acting in a biased manner in encyclopedia activities. Declarations of possible bias in the Template space (should or must) also discourage, or acknowledge the discouragement of, the same bias in encyclopedia-editing and other Wikipedia activities, such that they are certain to not undermine the goal of NPOV.
      • Incidentally, this also discourages using the box for vote-stacking or other bias-based abuse, as the users do not intend to form any sort of coalition or group (as is obvious from the text of the userbox).
    • In the case that a userbox or other template fails these guidelines, attempts to reword the template should be conducted first in order to bring it within these guidelines, so rewordings are not enacted in the middle of a deletion debate, leading to confusion or an unnecessary debate. Nomination at TfD should occur only if nobody can think of a permissible wording. (The TfD then progresses normally.)
  • In userspace, explanations of one's viewpoints beyond mere identification (and beyond the userboxes) is encouraged.
• Advocacy should be strongly discouraged, even in User space. Advocacy includes anything meant to solicit support or opposition towards an opinion or bias, or anything which may encourage identification to a "side", faction, or cabal. Inflammatory gestures may be completely prohibited.
  • Advocate userboxes are also discouraged by the existence of bias-reduction userboxes.
• Users who abuse userboxes through attempts to bring bias into articles or processes should be revealed and punished.
  • Userbox-users who receive any such attempts to solicit votes or bias should be assumed to act in good faith and presumed to reveal any attempts to solicit bias to the overall community. They should not be prohibited from participating in the matters to which they were exposed (since such a rule would lead to abuse to remove opposition), but should take special care to take the Neutral Point of View and avoid their bias.

Results

• Userboxes helpful to the encyclopedia are allowed in the Template namespace.
• Userboxes in the Template namespace with declarations of bias for the purpose of NPOV are allowed
  • Declarations of possible bias in the Template space (should or must) also discourage, or acknowledge the discouragement of, the same bias in encyclopedia-editing and other Wikipedia activities.
  • If nobody can find an acceptable way to word a bias-declaring userbox, the box may be nominated at TfD, and deleted via normal procedure (with consensus support). (How to delete the material - whether to subst or not - will not be addressed here.)
  • Advocate userboxes are not allowed in the Template space and their wording should be replaced.
• Good faith is assumed of users of userboxes, who are expected to reveal any attempts of userbox abuse to the public community.
• Boxes which contains these are (still) not allowed in the Template namespace:
  • Advocacy or encouragement of bias
  • Promotion of a faction

Limits

• This should not override any other policy
• This should encroach as little as possible on the existing poll

Bias-countering userboxes

I wonder if objections would be satiated if we make POV userboxes an explicitly bias-countering tool by rewording them along these lines (as an example): See better examples below

• User (Sun):+ : "This user admits to having a pro-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his pro-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards supporting (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):0 : "This user feels he has no bias towards (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):- : "This user admits to having a anti-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his anti-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards opposing (the Sun)."

If desired, one could extend this to five types by adding these two:

• User (Sun):++ : "This user's pro-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)
• User (Sun):-- : "This user's anti-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)

Of course, not all userboxes would have to have the same wording, they would just need to somehow make it clear that the box isn't advocating/advertising the POV, but is expressing a possible bias in encyclopedia-writing.

(Copied from my post at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#POV Userbox Suggestion. --AySz88^-^ 06:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

I support this principle, and think the existance of such userboxes would be of much more benefit to WP than their current forms are. However, strong proponents of userboxes could make a case that these boxes would discourabe people from using userboxes, since people are probably less likely to state "I admit a positive bias towards n" than they are "I believe that n is correct".

Perhaps more worryingly than that, they could effectively punish honesty during VfD's and neutrality disputes. A user who honestly used the statement of bias userboxes could disable their ability to participate rationally in disputes over that issue without others discounting their opinions, while those users who were equally biased but blind to their own faults could go undetected. --tjstrf 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, about the first paragraph, I guess I'd have to reply that people who would rather state that instead of a reworded more-neutral/tame/encyclopedic/[insert adjective here] version should be discouraged from using userboxes, as they are probably missing the point of why some people don't like userboxes (i.e. the type of people that Jimbo refers to as the advocating kind).

The second is a good point, and I have to admit that my own examples probably aren't very good; I'll have to work on them a bit to hopefully get something that works.

As an update: I hope that the "German solution" (what a horrible name!) doesn't preclude the possibility of something like this working and turn people away from the possible benefits I see with userboxes, as I think it'd still be great to turn this into encouraging the separation of advocacy in RL with editing in Wikipedia, regardless of what happens to the existing POV boxes. --AySz88^-^ 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how the userfication debate turns out, you could probably get a more generic box put in that said something along the lines of "This user attempts to stay away from editing articles on which they have a strong POV." which would still get the general point across. I also share your concerns about The German Pacification, to say the least. (See User talk:Tjstrf#Off DRV continuation for a list of reasons why.) --tjstrf 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some better examples

If one has any objections or improvements, feel free to edit or comment here.

• "This user feels his off-Wikipedia views __________ for/against/etc. _________ do not affect thier editing."
• "This user's bias for/against __________ should not show up in their edits."
• "This user restricts activites as a _________ off-Wikipedia."
• "This user strives to ensure their __________ biases do not influence their editing."
• "This user edits on Wikipedia avoiding the influence of their __+/-____ views on ____________."
• "This user avoids editing articles because they (feel that, are for, are against, etc.) ______________."
• "This user does not contribute to topics on _______ because they are a ___________."

CSV data of AMO vs Atl Maj Canes

Year,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Avg AMO over yr,± 5 year moving average of AMO index,Majors,"Majors, diff from avg",± 5 year moving average of major hurricanes

1856,,0.204,0.137,0.208,0.128,0.18,0.203,0.216,0.193,0.26,0.11,0.121,0.214,0.181166667,,2,, 1857,,0.199,-0.074,-0.089,-0.007,-0.047,0.086,0.117,-0.017,0.005,-0.148,-0.182,-0.297,-0.037833333,,0,, 1858,,-0.235,-0.328,-0.085,0.198,0.076,-0.053,-0.174,-0.085,0.057,0.135,0.261,0.109,-0.010333333,,0,, 1859,,-0.147,-0.135,0.046,0.136,0.074,-0.115,-0.194,0.049,0.067,0.114,0.046,0.068,0.00075,,1,, 1860,,0.101,-0.126,0.047,-0.083,0.155,0.289,0.216,0.026,-0.018,0.096,-0.021,0.128,0.0675,,1,, 1861,,-0.013,-0.123,-0.02,0.234,0.181,0.278,0.4,0.289,0.246,0.201,0.203,0.102,0.164833333,0.03730303,0,, 1862,,-0.041,-0.176,-0.086,-0.139,-0.194,-0.057,-0.307,-0.281,-0.269,-0.278,-0.365,-0.371,-0.213666667,0.032439394,0,, 1863,,-0.16,-0.057,0.014,0.036,0.011,-0.055,-0.307,-0.313,-0.171,-0.247,-0.191,-0.129,-0.13075,0.048606061,0,, 1864,,-0.219,-0.369,-0.195,-0.048,0.059,0.102,0.248,0.335,0.182,0.113,0.174,0.176,0.0465,0.056954545,0,, 1865,,0.175,0.235,0.149,0.045,0.014,0.184,0.106,0.026,0.27,0.236,0.201,0.201,0.1535,0.057325758,0,, 1866,,0.034,0.161,0.196,0.114,0.157,0.334,0.264,0.242,0.13,0.123,0.25,0.259,0.188666667,0.052848485,1,, 1867,,0.295,0.267,0.369,0.279,0.141,0.071,0.09,0.053,-0.015,-0.045,0.096,-0.069,0.127666667,0.045234848,1,, 1868,,0.045,0.114,0.186,0.244,0.17,0.31,0.389,0.187,0.131,-0.13,-0.072,0.106,0.14,0.067916667,0,, 1869,,-0.129,0.075,0.061,0.229,0.266,0.199,0.265,0.119,0.079,-0.022,-0.061,-0.103,0.0815,0.076833333,1,, 1870,,-0.174,-0.007,-0.058,-0.184,-0.045,-0.028,-0.056,0.084,0.134,0.141,0.158,0.093,0.004833333,0.07475,2 1871,,-0.152,-0.134,0.114,0.164,0.127,0.116,0.156,0.042,-0.103,-0.163,-0.019,0.071,0.01825,0.05780303,2 1872,,-0.085,-0.069,-0.101,-0.089,0.161,0.202,0.269,0.369,0.4,0.032,-0.049,-0.067,0.081083333,0.061636364,0 1873,,0.038,-0.011,0.026,0.03,-0.064,-0.054,0.069,0.029,0.13,0.066,0.046,0.125,0.035833333,0.09025,2 1874,,0.036,-0.128,-0.134,-0.105,0,0.148,0.086,-0.028,0.166,-0.055,-0.073,-0.305,-0.032666667,0.088,0 1875,,-0.181,0.052,0.021,0.003,0.149,0.155,-0.011,0.076,0.125,0.057,-0.073,-0.09,0.023583333,0.085371212,1 1876,,-0.219,-0.089,-0.105,-0.084,-0.085,-0.019,0.102,0.161,0.135,-0.068,-0.094,-0.03,-0.032916667,0.08794697,2 1877,,-0.006,0.145,0.228,0.134,0.243,0.312,0.289,0.352,0.252,0.222,0.29,0.309,0.230833333,0.083098485,1 1878,,0.23,0.324,0.335,0.633,0.514,0.617,0.41,0.577,0.538,0.308,0.362,0.461,0.442416667,0.071931818,2 1879,,0.313,0.369,0.009,0.027,0.235,0.166,0.074,0.006,-0.033,0.051,0.058,0.108,0.11525,0.060984848,2 1880,,0.067,-0.006,0.08,-0.048,-0.149,-0.022,0.108,0.091,0.245,0.221,0.138,-0.094,0.052583333,0.060977273,2 1881,,0.16,0.115,0.181,0.212,0.106,0.112,0,0.037,-0.031,-0.078,-0.313,-0.103,0.033166667,0.069280303,0 1882,,-0.139,-0.106,-0.04,-0.135,-0.138,-0.008,0.054,0.062,0.034,-0.022,0.007,0.01,-0.035083333,0.082568182,2 1883,,-0.055,-0.17,-0.159,0.022,0.028,-0.035,-0.049,0.013,-0.096,-0.118,-0.011,0.129,-0.04175,0.078598485,2 1884,,0.028,-0.147,-0.113,-0.066,-0.051,0.134,-0.033,-0.011,-0.153,-0.146,-0.342,-0.115,-0.084583333,0.05569697,1 1885,,-0.067,0.044,-0.034,-0.25,-0.165,-0.131,-0.023,0.115,0.036,0.034,0.013,0.035,-0.03275,0.031401515,1 1886,,0.133,0.129,0.186,0.21,0.237,0.206,0.249,0.067,0.005,-0.015,-0.011,-0.017,0.114916667,0.029121212,4,,,, 1887,,-0.096,-0.083,-0.019,-0.061,0.05,0.225,0.343,0.209,0.162,0.246,0.191,0.192,0.11325,0.017166667,2,,,, 1888,,0.244,0.181,0.266,0.134,0.141,0.264,0.199,0.158,0.161,0.267,0.14,0.091,0.187166667,0.019287879,2,,,, 1889,,0.249,0.256,0.331,0.312,0.313,0.225,0.075,0.094,0.103,0.102,0.176,0.05,0.1905,0.000401515,0,,,, 1890,,0.03,0.014,-0.041,-0.155,-0.147,-0.103,-0.256,-0.302,-0.26,-0.084,-0.272,-0.248,-0.152,-0.001015152,1,,,, 1891,,-0.276,-0.086,0.075,0.111,0.178,0.165,0.243,0.101,0.009,0.027,-0.237,0.02,0.0275,0.01119697,1,,,, 1892,,0.064,0.124,0.097,0.005,-0.127,-0.145,-0.25,-0.105,-0.212,-0.181,-0.275,-0.175,-0.098333333,0.010318182,0,,,, 1893,,-0.101,-0.053,-0.041,-0.153,-0.133,0.127,0.18,0.165,0.053,-0.057,0.026,-0.154,-0.01175,0.006356061,5,,,, 1894,,-0.145,-0.164,-0.184,-0.28,-0.355,-0.321,-0.223,-0.234,-0.222,-0.332,-0.31,-0.224,-0.2495,0.00055303,4,1.921568627,,, 1895,,-0.112,-0.08,-0.26,-0.288,-0.203,-0.103,-0.069,-0.091,0.078,0.076,-0.104,-0.046,-0.100166667,-0.008257576,0,-2.078431373,,, 1896,,-0.062,0.036,-0.036,0.051,0.261,0.193,0.105,0.084,0.317,0.162,0.049,0.059,0.101583333,0.013325758,2,-0.078431373,,, 1897,,0.082,0.135,0.306,0.25,0.165,0.101,0.099,0.02,0.049,0.078,-0.012,-0.01,0.10525,0.001333333,0,-2.078431373,,, 1898,,-0.014,0.059,0.109,0.063,0.092,0.212,0.218,0.141,0.107,-0.026,-0.127,0.002,0.069666667,-0.007439394,1,-1.078431373,,, 1899,,-0.063,-0.05,-0.006,0.088,0.204,0.19,0.113,0.272,0.132,0.095,0.203,0.302,0.123333333,-0.038136364,2,-0.078431373,-0.987522282,, 1900,,0.212,0.207,0.066,0.168,0.001,0.005,0.097,0.003,0.053,0.121,0.049,0.141,0.093583333,-0.034007576,2,-0.078431373,-1.260249554,, 1901,,0.054,0.191,0.164,0.157,0.087,0.224,0.189,0.187,0.008,-0.102,-0.074,-0.06,0.085416667,-0.031621212,0,-2.078431373,-0.987522282,, 1902,,-0.112,-0.027,-0.019,-0.144,-0.085,-0.246,-0.286,-0.167,0.004,0.021,-0.111,-0.081,-0.104416667,-0.061507576,0,-2.078431373,-1.169340463 1903,,-0.036,0.058,-0.053,-0.064,-0.139,-0.171,-0.158,-0.44,-0.451,-0.362,-0.234,-0.288,-0.194833333,-0.082893939,1,-1.078431373,-1.078431373 1904,,-0.348,-0.37,-0.375,-0.418,-0.394,-0.425,-0.334,-0.344,-0.474,-0.366,-0.195,-0.15,-0.349416667,-0.101628788,0,-2.078431373,-0.8057041 1905,,-0.221,-0.179,-0.355,-0.169,-0.059,-0.168,-0.051,-0.139,-0.353,-0.248,-0.265,-0.242,-0.204083333,-0.135242424,1,-1.078431373,-0.896613191 1906,,-0.068,-0.028,-0.049,-0.041,-0.156,0.011,-0.004,-0.061,-0.117,-0.138,-0.014,-0.222,-0.073916667,-0.163022727,3,0.921568627,-1.078431373 1907,,-0.182,-0.346,-0.252,-0.158,-0.146,-0.25,-0.277,-0.312,-0.175,-0.216,-0.224,-0.188,-0.227166667,-0.191325758,0,-2.078431373,-0.987522282 1908,,-0.228,-0.23,-0.238,-0.206,-0.161,-0.061,0.027,0.011,-0.086,-0.118,-0.152,-0.118,-0.13,-0.216840909,1,-1.078431373,-0.987522282 1909,,-0.101,-0.14,-0.098,-0.146,-0.004,-0.126,-0.164,-0.08,-0.112,-0.148,-0.288,-0.23,-0.136416667,-0.22519697,4,1.921568627,-1.078431373 1910,,-0.303,-0.248,-0.257,-0.307,-0.338,-0.358,-0.285,-0.257,-0.103,-0.187,-0.075,-0.239,-0.246416667,-0.184613636,1,-1.078431373,-0.8057041 1911,,-0.249,-0.249,-0.305,-0.317,-0.34,-0.236,-0.165,-0.062,-0.115,-0.11,-0.227,-0.169,-0.212,-0.172636364,0,-2.078431373,-0.351158645 1912,,-0.233,-0.257,-0.214,-0.165,-0.112,-0.147,-0.253,-0.391,-0.241,-0.247,-0.219,-0.232,-0.225916667,-0.190916667,1,-1.078431373,-0.442067736 1913,,-0.303,-0.208,-0.222,-0.438,-0.445,-0.562,-0.435,-0.431,-0.424,-0.378,-0.452,-0.323,-0.385083333,-0.193484848,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1914,,-0.219,-0.315,-0.402,-0.381,-0.259,-0.373,-0.428,-0.366,-0.185,-0.109,-0.18,-0.224,-0.28675,-0.198113636,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1915,,-0.125,-0.113,0,0.056,0.265,0.298,0.321,0.216,0.201,0.032,-0.002,0.015,0.097,-0.215651515,3,0.921568627,-0.8057041 1916,,-0.035,-0.094,-0.089,-0.114,0.024,0.033,-0.071,-0.012,0,-0.07,-0.236,-0.204,-0.072333333,-0.212681818,6,3.921568627,-0.714795009 1917,,-0.289,-0.345,-0.397,-0.301,-0.249,-0.147,-0.204,-0.187,-0.277,-0.336,-0.314,-0.254,-0.275,-0.221924242,2,-0.078431373,-0.623885918 1918,,-0.096,-0.17,-0.112,-0.173,-0.233,-0.413,-0.361,-0.385,-0.359,-0.252,-0.293,-0.218,-0.255416667,-0.230212121,0,-2.078431373,-0.623885918 1919,,-0.22,-0.053,-0.186,-0.049,-0.158,-0.216,-0.277,-0.185,-0.186,-0.136,-0.221,-0.284,-0.180916667,-0.208393939,1,-1.078431373,-0.442067736 1920,,-0.455,-0.396,-0.445,-0.328,-0.245,-0.274,-0.268,-0.296,-0.269,-0.26,-0.42,-0.296,-0.329333333,-0.196098485,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1921,,-0.283,-0.266,-0.31,-0.256,-0.243,-0.24,-0.1,-0.238,-0.217,-0.046,-0.254,-0.112,-0.21375,-0.196378788,2,-0.078431373,-0.169340463 1922,,-0.197,-0.234,-0.333,-0.402,-0.31,-0.323,-0.368,-0.301,-0.359,-0.278,-0.343,-0.316,-0.313666667,-0.178984848,1,-1.078431373,-0.532976827 1923,,-0.355,-0.452,-0.395,-0.421,-0.272,-0.305,-0.313,-0.417,-0.361,-0.255,-0.207,-0.052,-0.317083333,-0.153666667,1,-1.078431373,-0.623885918 1924,,-0.122,-0.19,-0.095,-0.048,0.054,-0.088,-0.117,-0.128,-0.195,-0.227,-0.307,-0.278,-0.145083333,-0.139704545,2,-0.078431373,-0.532976827 1925,,-0.317,-0.302,-0.229,-0.17,-0.068,-0.18,-0.135,-0.123,-0.11,-0.078,-0.162,0.056,-0.1515,-0.121325758,0,-2.078431373,-0.532976827 1926,,0.043,0.116,0.056,0.118,0.134,0.078,0.15,0.061,0.051,0.186,0.035,0.099,0.093916667,-0.074159091,6,3.921568627,-0.442067736 1927,,0.09,0.086,0.049,0.077,0.201,0.164,0.164,0.166,0.115,0.183,0.147,-0.014,0.119,-0.032939394,2,-0.078431373,-0.260249554 1928,,-0.036,-0.085,-0.084,-0.089,0.026,0.076,0.095,0.111,0.097,0.052,-0.041,-0.08,0.0035,0.014159091,1,-1.078431373,0.103386809 1929,,-0.078,-0.09,-0.079,-0.005,-0.1,-0.182,-0.169,-0.144,-0.054,-0.043,-0.103,-0.175,-0.101833333,0.043386364,1,-1.078431373,0.012477718 1930,,-0.112,-0.164,-0.084,-0.199,-0.1,-0.069,0.071,0.081,0.299,0.213,0.165,0.154,0.02125,0.059318182,1,-1.078431373,0.103386809 1931,,0.126,0.077,0.16,0.163,0.237,0.281,0.206,0.163,0.275,0.331,0.071,0.184,0.1895,0.087909091,1,-1.078431373,0.1942959 1932,,0.189,0.242,0.259,0.225,0.166,0.256,0.283,0.399,0.349,0.25,0.15,0.108,0.239666667,0.107257576,4,1.921568627,-0.351158645 1933,,0.101,0.169,0.103,0.224,0.304,0.257,0.293,0.294,0.256,0.344,0.093,0.015,0.204416667,0.119575758,5,2.921568627,-0.442067736 1934,,-0.098,-0.177,-0.197,-0.079,-0.099,0.047,0.184,0.093,0.155,0.184,0.031,0.009,0.004416667,0.130363636,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1935,,0.056,-0.121,-0.136,0.068,0.155,0.123,0.077,0.019,-0.023,-0.005,0.034,0.115,0.030166667,0.138189394,3,0.921568627,-0.532976827 1936,,0.151,0.159,0.208,0.21,0.182,0.207,0.209,0.228,0.188,0.118,0.034,0.062,0.163,0.153340909,1,-1.078431373,-0.442067736 1937,,0.069,0.1,0.113,0.084,0.145,0.465,0.625,0.606,0.522,0.312,0.271,0.369,0.30675,0.154060606,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1938,,0.226,0.167,0.214,0.253,0.218,0.183,0.22,0.313,0.323,0.37,0.334,0.233,0.2545,0.136568182,1,-1.078431373,-0.623885918 1939,,0.15,0.094,-0.017,0.109,0.121,0.192,0.341,0.338,0.315,0.025,-0.138,-0.064,0.122166667,0.151045455,1,-1.078431373,-0.8057041 1940,,0.078,-0.178,-0.128,-0.016,0.018,0.03,0.112,0.122,0.041,-0.032,-0.115,-0.121,-0.01575,0.171984848,0,-2.078431373,-0.532976827 1941,,-0.045,0.111,0.148,0.081,0.054,-0.002,0.105,0.295,0.321,0.433,0.41,0.344,0.187916667,0.17230303,2,-0.078431373,-0.714795009 1942,,0.152,0.215,0.209,0.222,0.227,0.277,0.118,0.163,0.241,0.221,0.214,0.11,0.197416667,0.151098485,1,-1.078431373,-0.623885918 1943,,0.148,0.114,-0.085,-0.118,-0.105,-0.058,0.034,0.035,0.095,0.099,0.161,0.247,0.04725,0.125734848,2,-0.078431373,-0.260249554 1944,,0.32,0.337,0.442,0.334,0.311,0.367,0.381,0.463,0.437,0.386,0.292,0.294,0.363666667,0.112340909,3,0.921568627,-0.078431373 1945,,0.28,0.369,0.385,0.432,0.33,0.195,0.105,0.128,0.106,0.123,0.205,0.159,0.23475,0.101848485,3,0.921568627,0.557932264 1946,,0.298,0.212,0.152,0.083,0.111,-0.079,-0.184,-0.143,0.004,0.006,-0.043,-0.013,0.033666667,0.123159091,1,-1.078431373,1.012477718 1947,,-0.152,-0.105,-0.069,-0.074,-0.132,-0.13,-0.134,-0.077,-0.028,-0.068,0.07,0.056,-0.07025,0.134310606,2,-0.078431373,1.103386809 1948,,0.008,-0.005,0.051,-0.047,0.019,0.078,-0.016,0,-0.029,0.031,0.157,0.086,0.02775,0.141833333,4,1.921568627,1.376114082 1949,,0.176,0.184,0.062,0.122,0,0.025,0.095,0.126,0.094,0.128,0.132,0.142,0.107166667,0.142916667,3,0.921568627,1.376114082 1950,,0.135,-0.01,-0.081,-0.106,-0.035,-0.019,-0.031,0.044,0.034,-0.066,0.104,0.112,0.00675,0.128871212,8,5.921568627,1.648841355 1951,,0.127,0.023,0.037,0.193,0.197,0.314,0.447,0.329,0.274,0.284,0.199,0.2,0.218666667,0.107310606,5,2.921568627,1.557932264 1952,,0.197,0.208,0.256,0.216,0.206,0.409,0.397,0.429,0.387,0.38,0.276,0.366,0.310583333,0.109492424,3,0.921568627,1.648841355 1953,,0.291,0.21,0.167,0.339,0.368,0.301,0.369,0.284,0.305,0.174,0.27,0.284,0.280166667,0.136962121,4,1.921568627,1.921568627 1954,,0.253,0.121,0.127,0.012,0.095,0.125,-0.019,0.011,0.015,-0.005,0,-0.025,0.059166667,0.140833333,2,-0.078431373,1.739750446 1955,,0.102,0.067,0.067,0.122,0.203,0.22,0.295,0.202,0.23,0.306,0.413,0.283,0.209166667,0.154136364,6,3.921568627,1.648841355 1956,,0.213,0.121,0.04,0.09,-0.031,-0.237,-0.063,-0.071,-0.062,-0.016,-0.059,0.046,-0.002416667,0.164257576,2,-0.078431373,1.557932264 1957,,-0.054,-0.079,0.008,-0.046,-0.094,0.015,0.067,0.23,0.249,0.177,0.112,0.107,0.057666667,0.152659091,2,-0.078431373,1.1942959 1958,,0.077,0.218,0.373,0.374,0.23,0.25,0.192,0.189,0.24,0.179,0.213,0.248,0.231916667,0.126613636,5,2.921568627,1.103386809 1959,,0.128,0.142,0.001,0.024,0.035,-0.032,-0.003,0.04,0.153,0.14,0.079,0.137,0.070333333,0.094234848,2,-0.078431373,1.285204991 1960,,0.205,0.245,0.116,0.125,0.331,0.348,0.299,0.363,0.24,0.325,0.279,0.166,0.2535,0.076159091,2,-0.078431373,1.1942959 1961,,0.089,0.11,0.177,0.255,0.223,0.061,0.01,0.064,0.032,0.058,0.096,0.242,0.118083333,0.059356061,7,4.921568627,0.921568627 1962,,0.178,0.181,0.195,0.117,0.052,-0.042,0.021,-0.034,0.034,0.095,0.076,0.22,0.091083333,0.052522727,1,-1.078431373,0.830659537 1963,,0.187,0.196,0.163,0.134,-0.055,-0.017,-0.006,-0.043,-0.172,-0.041,-0.027,-0.03,0.024083333,0.033992424,2,-0.078431373,0.648841355 1964,,-0.045,0.051,0.069,-0.116,0.071,0.034,-0.114,-0.204,-0.19,-0.241,-0.136,-0.091,-0.076,0.015719697,6,3.921568627,0.648841355 1965,,-0.168,-0.147,-0.048,-0.066,-0.068,-0.096,-0.158,-0.179,-0.191,-0.217,-0.245,-0.093,-0.139666667,0.001939394,1,-1.078431373,0.648841355 1966,,-0.046,0.041,0.021,0.075,0.033,-0.014,-0.025,-0.013,0.031,0.044,0.034,0.111,0.024333333,-0.047522727,3,0.921568627,0.557932264 1967,,0.112,0.119,-0.002,0.016,-0.155,-0.23,-0.199,-0.133,-0.066,-0.068,-0.203,-0.122,-0.077583333,-0.088431818,1,-1.078431373,-0.078431373 1968,,-0.215,-0.167,-0.177,-0.123,-0.092,-0.231,-0.198,-0.181,-0.118,-0.081,-0.076,-0.095,-0.146166667,-0.114356061,0,-2.078431373,-0.078431373 1969,,-0.031,0.136,0.24,0.181,0.044,0.061,0.126,-0.069,-0.074,-0.153,-0.091,0.001,0.030916667,-0.152825758,5,2.921568627,-0.078431373 1970,,0.023,-0.016,0.052,0.053,-0.013,-0.149,-0.167,-0.108,-0.104,-0.163,-0.207,-0.176,-0.08125,-0.171083333,2,-0.078431373,-0.351158645 1971,,-0.213,-0.259,-0.277,-0.379,-0.293,-0.33,-0.315,-0.402,-0.333,-0.202,-0.209,-0.275,-0.290583333,-0.189454545,1,-1.078431373,-0.260249554 1972,,-0.284,-0.346,-0.405,-0.292,-0.435,-0.454,-0.34,-0.349,-0.268,-0.252,-0.242,-0.316,-0.331916667,-0.206840909,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1973,,-0.339,-0.359,-0.309,-0.229,-0.134,-0.14,-0.068,-0.098,-0.096,-0.18,-0.174,-0.203,-0.194083333,-0.214037879,1,-1.078431373,-0.351158645 1974,,-0.241,-0.249,-0.366,-0.488,-0.464,-0.412,-0.479,-0.432,-0.47,-0.472,-0.39,-0.326,-0.399083333,-0.208628788,2,-0.078431373,-0.169340463 1975,,-0.236,-0.303,-0.274,-0.309,-0.351,-0.259,-0.235,-0.149,-0.3,-0.317,-0.304,-0.285,-0.276833333,-0.21094697,3,0.921568627,-0.442067736 1976,,-0.348,-0.405,-0.457,-0.39,-0.452,-0.447,-0.271,-0.148,-0.155,-0.256,-0.378,-0.394,-0.34175,-0.208318182,2,-0.078431373,-0.351158645 1977,,-0.352,-0.296,-0.146,-0.18,-0.132,-0.07,-0.068,-0.107,-0.194,-0.186,-0.105,-0.167,-0.166916667,-0.198931818,1,-1.078431373,-0.351158645 1978,,-0.068,-0.109,-0.12,-0.156,-0.165,-0.294,-0.238,-0.188,-0.151,-0.168,-0.08,-0.144,-0.15675,-0.172901515,2,-0.078431373,-0.260249554 1979,,-0.153,-0.111,-0.189,-0.198,-0.078,-0.002,-0.054,-0.075,-0.069,-0.047,-0.045,-0.019,-0.086666667,-0.171757576,2,-0.078431373,-0.260249554 1980,,0.039,-0.038,-0.098,0.04,0.17,0.149,0.091,0.064,0.033,-0.021,-0.156,-0.208,0.005416667,-0.157234848,2,-0.078431373,-0.169340463 1981,,-0.135,-0.135,0.047,-0.05,-0.038,-0.016,-0.048,-0.069,0.01,-0.14,-0.089,0.035,-0.052333333,-0.154371212,3,0.921568627,-0.442067736 1982,,-0.037,-0.035,-0.036,-0.134,-0.152,-0.138,-0.181,-0.26,-0.257,-0.313,-0.369,-0.336,-0.187333333,-0.114962121,1,-1.078431373,-0.532976827 1983,,-0.253,-0.061,0.125,0.109,0.002,-0.008,0.036,-0.111,-0.169,-0.149,-0.112,0.044,-0.045583333,-0.097462121,1,-1.078431373,-0.351158645 1984,,-0.057,-0.039,-0.078,-0.108,-0.123,-0.28,-0.224,-0.183,-0.161,-0.285,-0.372,-0.268,-0.1815,-0.087939394,1,-1.078431373,-0.351158645 1985,,-0.306,-0.281,-0.31,-0.352,-0.292,-0.077,-0.103,-0.227,-0.196,-0.198,-0.246,-0.284,-0.239333333,-0.080484848,3,0.921568627,-0.442067736 1986,,-0.292,-0.227,-0.242,-0.269,-0.183,-0.206,-0.195,-0.22,-0.165,-0.269,-0.35,-0.326,-0.245333333,-0.090136364,0,-2.078431373,-0.442067736 1987,,-0.232,-0.171,0.012,0.075,0.101,0.244,0.327,0.329,0.247,0.1,-0.022,0.091,0.09175,-0.102590909,1,-1.078431373,-0.623885918 1988,,0.007,-0.065,0.038,0.103,0.185,0.217,0.17,0.046,-0.04,-0.12,-0.109,-0.125,0.025583333,-0.101840909,3,0.921568627,-0.623885918 1989,,-0.18,-0.112,-0.202,-0.23,-0.099,0.135,0.225,0.163,-0.041,-0.075,-0.101,-0.107,-0.052,-0.110265152,2,-0.078431373,-0.714795009 1990,,-0.25,-0.111,-0.126,-0.059,-0.012,-0.008,0.029,0.099,0.197,0.167,0.001,0.017,-0.004666667,-0.078265152,1,-1.078431373,-0.351158645 1991,,-0.142,-0.067,-0.019,-0.078,-0.112,-0.089,-0.063,-0.058,0.01,-0.209,-0.21,-0.172,-0.10075,-0.058704545,2,-0.078431373,-0.078431373 1992,,-0.147,-0.053,-0.05,-0.138,-0.184,-0.104,-0.172,-0.331,-0.319,-0.247,-0.286,-0.241,-0.189333333,-0.028469697,1,-1.078431373,0.012477718 1993,,-0.198,-0.143,-0.203,-0.127,-0.123,-0.131,-0.232,-0.181,-0.113,-0.188,-0.266,-0.244,-0.179083333,0.000628788,1,-1.078431373,0.1942959 1994,,-0.243,-0.259,-0.23,-0.146,-0.157,-0.173,-0.179,-0.178,-0.088,0.006,0.034,-0.046,-0.13825,0.013113636,0,-2.078431373,0.376114082 1995,,-0.016,0.013,0.071,0.127,0.315,0.418,0.366,0.237,0.109,0.151,0.17,0.085,0.1705,0.024189394,5,2.921568627,0.467023173 1996,,0.036,0.015,-0.012,0.057,-0.019,-0.077,-0.059,0.043,0.051,-0.097,-0.126,-0.102,-0.024166667,0.039613636,6,3.921568627,0.739750446 1997,,-0.037,0.016,0.055,0.055,0.083,0.062,0.116,0.068,0.157,0.198,0.095,0.179,0.08725,0.058742424,1,-1.078431373,0.739750446 1998,,0.181,0.342,0.372,0.346,0.427,0.54,0.543,0.571,0.472,0.441,0.376,0.331,0.411833333,0.101022727,3,0.921568627,0.921568627,, 1999,,0.103,0.108,0.122,0.109,0.219,0.245,0.259,0.37,0.249,0.084,0.016,0.071,0.162916667,0.140037879,5,2.921568627,1.376114082,, 2000,,-0.031,0.012,0.154,0.1,0.159,0.038,0.129,0.159,0.16,0.018,0.008,-0.068,0.069833333,0.183181818,3,0.921568627,2.012477718,, 2001,,-0.067,0.031,0.077,0.049,0.041,0.253,0.196,0.241,0.355,0.321,0.217,0.266,0.165,0.196739669,4,1.921568627,1.739750446,, 2002,,0.232,0.221,0.203,0.086,0.007,-0.059,-0.002,0.169,0.145,0.175,0.079,0.06,0.109666667,,2,-0.078431373,,, 2003,,0.107,0.039,0.161,0.13,0.209,0.266,0.346,0.484,0.514,0.487,0.283,0.283,0.27575,,3,0.921568627,,, 2004,,0.266,0.264,0.212,0.167,0.053,0.233,0.29,0.377,0.299,0.304,0.288,0.248,0.250083333,,6,3.921568627,,, 2005,,0.171,0.18,0.339,0.352,0.347,0.384,0.513,0.503,0.482,0.298,0.194,0.273,0.336333333,,7,4.921568627,,, 2006,,0.179,0.127,0.113,0.256,0.364,0.395,0.441,0.473,0.431,0.397,0.34,,0.319636364,,2,-0.078431373,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Average Majors, 1900 to 2001",2.078431373,,,,

Testing noinclude and #if

/T3: Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/T3

AySz88^-^ 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to provide help for those people who don't know what the colours and letters mean, I've added extra bits to give an indication of these. Hopefully it doesn't clutter the bar up too much. Gringer 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Premature buttonbar use

Several of you have taken the button bar and put it onto every hurricane since 1990. The problem is you've used a template in the talk space. This cannot remain like this. You guys need to go through and move every one of them over and fix every article. (In other news, I think the new buttonbars look a lot better and are pretty usable.) Jdorje 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category 5 fish-spinners

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

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

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

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

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

template design

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

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

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

Too-long storm sections (again)

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

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

Golbez's point of view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jdorje 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Arlene article, Alpha, Ophelia, Vince... Where will it end? There are simply too many articles. I'm sure if we condense it just right, it could work on the main page. I strongly oppose the formation of those nothing articles (as I like to call them). Hurricanehink 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Partially agreed with you on that. I think that if the storm is so unnotable that only basic information is available, then an article should not be created. I strongly oppose the articles on Ethel (1960), Bertha (1996), Alex (2004), Arlene (2005), and Alpha and Vince to some extent. I like the articles on Faith (1966, no self boasting here), Odette (2003), and Ophelia (2005). I feel that they have good, concise information that does much more than copy from the main article. And while discretion is clearly not a common virtue here, I believe that we should judge the article and not the storm. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And now we have a Cindy article. We need to stop this sooner rather than later. There is no point for all these articles. Simply send them to the NHC article when they have one for a full storm history. All that should be mentioned is a very brief history and what, if anything, makes it notable. This page should be based more off the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season page; lots of storms but short enough to read it. Sure, some text will be lost, but with proper links, it wouldn't matter. E. Brown, good call on some of the storms, agreed on discretion... Hopefully this will get figured out in the coming days without having an article on every last storm. Hurricanehink 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Beta?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Reorganization

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

The yyyy Oceanician hurricane season article has just bare bones:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Button bar poll

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

Keep it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is simply a tool to gather opinion and try to reach a consensus. Until someone starts using some of the criticism on this page to improve the button bar, no one will change their votes, and a consensus will never be achieved. --Holderca1 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

14. KEEP Contrary to popular belief I simply put it back because I thought it looked good, and because the unilateralism in removing it when there seemed to be a slim majority in favour of keeping it annoyed me. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
15. KEEP Very useful. Dralwik 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
16. KEEP Far more visually appealing than the oversized ToC and a useful tool. Plus, I see no reason for it to not exist, which is more important in my book. -- Cuivienen 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
17. KEEP I think it's actually very useful, and whoever was whinging a few days ago about the colours not having meaning, the colours etc. are at the top of this and the notable cyclones page. I think that's more than sufficient. -- Sarsaparilla39 08:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of it

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

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

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

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

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

11. Remove, I won't make a fuss over it, but it is just simply horrible. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Delete all of them: They add no functionality to the articles because they are redundant to the tables of contents and storm infoboxes. There are already at least two links (section and storm names) in all season articles, and this one also has records set and ACE table. In addition, using colour to distinguish between things is bad from the viewpoint of accessibility. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong Remove. Ugly and redundant. 200.124.33.78 23:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
14. DELETE IT -- without any explanations, the button bar says nothing to the average Wikipedia reader. Even with the explanation, its purpose has been usurped by the outline. This is another example of forgetting the people who read the Wikipedia -- and the people who post to the hurricane articles are not the average Wikipedia reader. B.Wind 20:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    This is a surprising conclusion to me, since I had been thinking the exact opposite - I felt the average Wikipedia reader would rather have the obvious and concise button bar, and above arguments seem to say that there are "enough" other ways to find the other articles - though the other ways aren't as obvious. Besides, the explanation/key is easy enough - see User:AySz88/Sandbox for one way we might make the key. AySz88^-^ 22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season summary

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

October summary

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Effects Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layout

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's how your ToC-floater version looks in Firefox: [11]. A difference between the two is that in Firefox the SSScale is pushed down to right next to the "In early October, the relatively weak Hurricane Stan..." sentence, while in IE the SSScale is right under the Wikinews thing. -- RattleMan 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Separate article for records set this season

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

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

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

Well, at the moment there isn't a timeline and even when they were just showing the timeline for October it didn't make it much longer. But now for the moment I agree that we shouldn't necessarily do it. People have done a good job cutting down on the length of the storm articles. Lets just leave it as it is for now and see how it turns out. bob rulz 09:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Arlene Article

I intend to create a new article for Arlene. The summary on the season page is too long and deserves to be split off (in my opinion). Also, there are 3 pictures [12] that can be integrated. Jdorje 02:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Whoa, why is there an Arlene article? It did next to nothing! The main article summary is perfect the way it is. Hurricanehink 12:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I live where it made landfall. Zero fatalites here from the storm, little if any damage, just another rainy day. I honestly can't even remember it, just another day, still had to go to work, ect... --Holderca1 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed as well - no need for an article based on damage (virtually none), on notability or on strength. CrazyC83 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just merged all the content from the Arlene article back to the main page. I rewrote it a bit to make it more concise, it is a bit shorter now(without losing any information). I left the Arlene article as is for now. --Holderca1 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Holderca, thanks for making my redirect automatic. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What to trim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jdorje 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

My point is that there is no "problem" at all. If there seems to be too much information, then one can split away and recategorize information. AySz88^-^ 19:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the storm summaries take up most of the article? I mean, what is the season without the storms? --Holderca1 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, but there is far too much trivia (records, ACE tables) for the average reader. In many articles in general, trivia occupy less than 5% of an article (and usually spread out or in a "trivia" section near the end). Here a full ONE-THIRD of the space is dedicated to speed records (the average reader -- as opposed to most of the posters to the discussion here -- doesn't care if 2005's sixth storm occurred "two weeks ahead of" the corresponding storm in 1936. The only people who care -- or have even heard of -- the ACE tables are either working for a weather service or are writing about it here). It is easy to forget that this article was not intended to be written "by us, for us" but for the masses. When all is said and done, the trivia should be removed, possibly to its own main article. B.Wind 19:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think records of these type are trivia. The ACE stuff certainly is, and I think in the end that would do well to be removed, the final ACE is all that is relevant, and even that is only vaguely so. --Golbez 20:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The important thing, I feel, is how the information is "removed". I strongly disagree with permanently removing otherwise okay information from Wikipedia entirely in an effort to "condense" - but agree with moving things to other articles. AySz88^-^ 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest-formed storms

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

Rapid formation of storms in 2005

Almost every storm in 2005 has set a record for rapid formation. Below are shown the dates on which each storm formed, and the old record for earliest-forming storm of that number. From the NHC "best track" data [13]
Storm #	Formation Day	Name	Old record	Difference
1	June 9	Arlene	January 19, 1978	+141 days
2	June 28	Bret	May 17, 1887	+42 days
3	July 5	Cindy	June 11, 1887	+24 days
4	July 5	Dennis	Cindy - July 7, 1959	-2 days
5	July 11	Emily	Danny - July 16, 1997	-5 days
6	July 21	Franklin	August 4, 1936	-14 days
7	July 24	Gert	August 7, 1936	-14 days
8	August 3	Harvey	August 15, 1936	-12 days
9	August 7	Irene	August 20, 1936	-13 days
10	August 22	Jose	Jerry - August 23, 1995	-1 day
11	August 24	Katrina	August 28, 1933/1936/1995	-4 days
12	August 31	Lee	Luis - August 29, 1995	+2 days
13	September 2	Maria	September 8, 1936	-6 days
14	September 5	Nate	September 10, 1936	-5 days
15	September 7	Ophelia	September 16, 1933	-9 days
16	September 17	Philippe	September 27, 1933	-10 days
17	September 18	Rita	September 28, 1933	-10 days
18	October 2	Stan	October 1, 1933	+1 day
19	October 5	Tammy	October 25, 1933	-20 days
20	October 9	Vince	October 26, 1933	-17 days
21	October 17	Wilma	November 15, 1933	-29 days
22	October 22	Alpha	none	N/A
23	October 27	Beta	none	N/A

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

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

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

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

This is what I get from the HURDAT data:

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

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

Season Summary Section

Why is there a season summary section? I always thought that the lead section was supposed to summarize the article. Why not fold that section into the rest of the article? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is slightly different: the season summary is what the whole article is supposed to be about. Everything else in the article is about specific storms and should be moved into separate articles. (But I agree, having a "summary" section isn't right; this area should be changed to "storm history" or something). Jdorje 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So you think we should have seperate articles for Tropical Storm Lee and Tropical Depression Twenty-two? --Holderca1 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Then you wouldn't have to scroll past their summaries on the main page to get to the interesting text. If nobody is interested in reading it anyway it shouldn't be on the main page. Jdorje 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to have to strongly disagree with this one. First off, what is the point of creating an article for Tropical Storm Lee if it is going to be a permanent stub? Second, the storms are what make the article, without the storms, there is no article. If it isn't interesting enough to be on the main page, it certainly doesn't need to have it's own page. Most people are not going to want to click on 25 or so different pages to get the whole story here, having it all one page consolidates it nicely. If you are concerned on the length of some of them, just remove the extra fluff that is in there, a lot of the sections are way too detailed anyway. These are summaries after all. --Holderca1 04:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I differentiate between a stub and a deservingly short (but satisfactorily fleshed-out) article (i.e. Suzuki Beane, Arthur Wesley Dow, Syosset High School). I remember something in the Wikipedia namespace about the difference - however, I can't recall where it is.

I think we have very different viewpoints as to what this article is supposed to be about. An easier way to say this might be that I feel the blurb in this article should not serve the same function as a full introduction to the storm - that is not appropriate in an article about the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season as a whole. Currently, it seems to me that each of the blurbs is basically the introduction to a would-be article. AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a reflection of the many layers of detail that has ended up being represented in this article. The lead paragraph is a concise introduction which defines the importance of the 2005 season. The body of the actual article - what is currently the "season summary" - runs through the main events, going into more details about topics which were mentioned in the introduction. I share Jdorje's sentiment that that section is the real point of the article. The storm list holds additional details about individual storms. (Conceptually, I think of it as the merging of the summaries of major storms with all the mini-articles of storms that don't have their own article.) That's three layers of detail that have to be included in one article. Those layers have to be separate - removing a layer entirely and folding them into each other increases the probability of giving too much or too little information for a section to be useful to someone.

(I think there's an oddity of organization here. Because of the exponential nature of increasing the level of detail, having to take care of three of them bloats the article too much - but that seems to be acceptable if there is no way to adequately split sections away from the main article. I've already expressed my belief that each storm can already have its own article, leaving only a sentence or two behind and dropping things down to two levels of detail - probably similar to what Jdorje believes.) AySz88^-^ 21:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree. Jdorje 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with having the Season Summary separate from teh induction is the visual problem it creates. There is a huge amount of white space near the beginning of the article because the ToC, SSS and Season template all force the Season Summary section far down. This would be solved instantly by combining the Season Summary with the brief introductory blurb. In fact, I'm going to do that now, and we can argue about it later if anyone feels passionately otherwise. -- 69.86.16.61 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but I think every storm could use its own article. An analog to this situation could be the Beatles. Every song has an article, to why not every storm? Here is what I propose: In the 2 year period before the active year, they should have articles for all storms. 2003-2005 in this case. When the next year (2006) gets its first storm, the last year (2003) goes back to its old self, with only retired storms or extremely significant storms remaining. Because 2005 is almost done, we could do this for 2004, resulting in 9 new articles. When the year is over, those 10 articles (including Alex) become merged with the article. This allows time for interest in the old seasons for a time, yet getting rid of those articles in the years after the season is over when the interest dies down. Hopefully you understood that... Hurricanehink 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think every storm could use its own article, but I don't think this should be changed after 2 years. The idea behind putting every storm into the season article is that this makes for one medium-sized article instead of 10 tiny articles. But in the case of 2005 it makes for one giant article instead of 25 smallish articles. None of those 25 would be truly tiny (i.e., stub level) since we have at least 2 paragraphs for each storm, and will be able to get 2 pictures for most storms. Jdorje 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the articles should remain at least until we see which names are retired. Its a pretty good bet that there will never be more Hurricanes Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma (and maybe Beta). Maybe they will retire Vince since it is noteworthy. Who knows? It'll be another six years before the other articles conflict with other named storms (except TS Alpha, which could happen every year).Good kitty 05:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not looking like Beta will get retired, it's been a week now and no reports of fatalites which is great news. --Holderca1 14:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The storm needs to be notable for it to have an article. The main page is for the storms of 2005. When people go there and just see links to subpages (bad, bad, bad!), they go "Wow, this is stupid!". People don't like being lead on a leash. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain further? What would be "stupid", and what would make them feel they're being "led on a leash"? (And the articles, of course, won't necessarily go to subpages.... Although Jdorje might have used subpages when he built his example, that doesn't mean they'll have to be in subpages in the real, final product.)

I'd expect someone coming to "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" to want a general overview of the season, not only the storms of 2005 or a list of the individual storms' summaries? AySz88^-^ 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, since we have both! And every other season is designed in such a fashion, and it worked all last year. --Golbez 03:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't follow what you mean by that (what are you responding to?). My bit was in response to a possible meaning of Brown's post, because he doesn't seem to like having the "summary" bit at all (?).

(Similarly, I'm going to try to guess at what you meant and respond to that.) The full summary of each storm of the season is inappropriate in this article because that crams three (not two/"both") full levels of detail into one article. Most articles seem to have two levels - an introduction and a rundown of details about what was mentioned in the introduction. If there is so much information that a section needs to be recategorized into a third level, that section is split away into another article, leaving a brief(er) summary behind (see the logic behind Hurricane Katrina article --> Local effects and aftermath --> the "Impact of Hurricane Katrina on..." articles). However, we seem to be putting three levels into this article and trying to pass it off as two - the introduction and the summary of the season is already two levels, not one. Then there's the third level, the list of summaries of each individual storm. There is simply far too much detail to fit the season into this one article about "2005 Atlantic hurricane season", even if you selectively split articles away. AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you really want to make an article for EVERY storm, here is one exception that should be made: Tropical Storm Tammy and Subtropical Depression Twenty-two should redirect to the Northeast Flooding of October 2005 article, with both mentioned there. CrazyC83 20:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

<--

The problem seems to be that each individual storm does not seem to have enough text. As some kind of compromise, perhaps do something like "August 2005 Atlantic basin tropical storms" or "Early-October 2005 Atlantic basin tropical storms", if too-short article length is a problem? AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Trim-up

Transferred the rest of the topics to archive 11

But where did you move it to, as there's nothing in Archive 11? ...And you moved at least one active thread.... (The most obvious is the Button Bar which had a reply yesterday.) AySz88^-^ 23:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed whatever the anon blanked. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

ACE index section

I really don't like how the ACE section says that this years ACE index understates activity. ACE doesn't measure activity or impact to land; it is an estimate of kinetic energy dissipation. By saying the ACE understates activity (storm numbers/impact/whatever), we imply that ACE has anything to do with activity, which it doesn't. It is about seasonal intensity. Anyone else have thoughts?--Mm35173 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

ACE does have something to do with activity. Here are some averages for you to munch on:

• Seasons with 0-5 storms (4 seasons) - average ACE = 28
• 6-10 storms (24 seasons) - avg ACE = 68
• 11-15 storms (24 seasons) - avg ACE = 133
• 16 and up (4 seasons) - avg ACE = 195

--Holderca1 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree a rewrite is needed. I agree ACE doesn't measure impact to land. It does measure activity but in a way that gives a high weighting to duration. An alternative measure Emanuel's power dissipation index uses wind speeds cubed (instead of squared) which gives more weighting to wind speeds and less weighting to duration. Just because the weighting is different doesn't mean that ACE is wrong and over-rates duration. Here my first stab:

The tropical storms of 2005 ranked from highest to lowest ACE, given to three significant figures. The total for the season up to and including Hurricane Beta is 218. This would place it 4th in the list of most energetic seasons since 1950.

ACE measures the strength and duration of a tropical cyclone. It may, at first, appear odd that 2005 has more tropical cyclones than any other season and several of the most intense hurricanes while only being 4th in ACE index. The reason for this is that duration of hurricanes play an important role in the calculation of ACE. Only three long-lasting Cape Verde hurricanes - Maria, Irene, and Emily - formed, a lower number than in other seasons of similar activity. This effect is most obvious in the comparatively high ACE value of Hurricane Emily (also 2004's Ivan's ACE of 69.95) to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Emily was not as strong as either storm, but formed out in the Atlantic and made a long trek across the Caribbean Sea before making landfall whereas Katrina and Rita both developed in the Bahamas, close to the mainland, and lasted for much shorter periods of time. A further example is Ophelia (only Category 1) which has high ACE because it maintained itself for a long period of time and was slow to build and dissipate. There are other measures such as Kerry Emanuel's Power dissipation index which give less weighting to duration.

crandles 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In the long run, it shouldn't matter. The only people who care about ACE are those who either work for a weather bureau, meteorologists, and people who contribute to the Wikipedia hurricane articles. If we're writing this simply for ourselves (and not the masses), then it is best omitted. B.Wind 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tammy and TD22

Should those two storms redirect to Northeast Flooding of October 2005 with clear linkages back and forth and strong mention on that page (becoming a double-main article in essence)? CrazyC83 21:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now there's an interesting idea. Maybe if we make a plain, blatant reference in the lead/summary here, we could redir here, but this is worth discussing. Or maybe they should redirect there, with an obvious link back here. Huh. --Golbez 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The interesting thing about Tammy is that it never even came close to New England, it dissipated over the Florida panhandle and the northeast Gulf of Mexico. The HPC only issued one advisory for Tammy with rainfall amounts for the southern states. Tammy just pulled up a lot of tropical moisture to help fuel the storms in the northeast. --Holderca1 21:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the storm summary mentions that new advisories were issued on October 8th for Tammy in the northeast. There is no mention of who issued them, it wasn't the NHC or the HPC. So it's anyones guess. --Holderca1 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because they were National Weather Service flood watches and warnings. Tammy merged with an oncoming front. That front stalled out just offshore of the southern coasts and right over the northeast. TD22 slammed right into it and made the whole situation even worse. Once Tammy merged with the front, it was no longer a tropical system. 22 was actually a massive non-tropical gale area when it clashed with the front. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Help Needed with a Presentation

Hey everyone,

I've begun work on a presentation on the 2005 hurricane season that I'm going to be giving at my college's AMS chapter meeting in two weeks. What I'm going to be focusing on is what made this season incredible, and what made it odd. Obviously, what made it incredible is pretty obvious - the numerous records set, the landfalling hurricanes, etc.

Here's where I could use some help: the odd. There's a number of oddities I already can think of about this season and about its individual storms, but I need more. I'm looking for oddities about each individual storm itself to make up much of my presentation, as well as some large-scale oddities as well. Examples of things I'll be using are "the Mexican siblings" - Bret Gert and Jose with nearly the same track - and the lack of any real Cape Verde storms, despite the GFS model's insistence that it would happen.

Also, I'm looking for pictures or short audio/video clips that I can incorporate into the presentation. Pictures should be easy to find but if anyone has anything real unique, especially in terms of some short audio or video (or pictures), I'd love to get a hold of it.

I'm doing the whole thing in powerpoint and will be sure to post it here when it's done. Thanks for your help! --The Great Zo 17:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There were a couple links posted before that might be helpful, such as at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a003279/index.html (long videos and pretty images) and there might be things to dig up in the lists of videos at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/Hurricane.html or http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Keyword/Hurricanes.html . You can cut up the long satellite video into shorter pieces using Windows Movie Editor. Seaching Google Video might help to get video quickly for any hurricanes of which you don't have video. AySz88^-^ 18:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm definitely going to use a few of the things from those sites!

Can anyone else help at all? Really, this should just be an exercise in talk-page discussion: what made this hurricane season "odd" ? The Great Zo 15:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Early activity (2 in June- first time since 1986 and 13th since 1851; 7 before August), overall record-breaking activity (2 more storms than previous most, 1 more hurricane than previous most, possible major record- some of 1950's 8 were estimated- Charlie and Jig), early intensity (2 majors before August- first time since 1936; strongest earliest storms), # of Cat. 5's (3 with a possible 4th), record pressure minimums, Vince, Bahama Busters (Rita and Katrina), lack of a real peak, earliest nth named storm except for 1st, 2nd, 12th, and 19th. Lack of significant gaps since June (4 days or more) until right now. Hurricanehink 15:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

I have done a possible rewrite at one of my user subpages, User:Michelle_T/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_rewrite. I'd like replace the current article with what I have written. I changed the positioning of some of the picture so that the headings and main article links woulf all be on the left. I also tossed the Nate picture because there was no room for it. I assumed that the October part of the timeline can be sent to the main article, and that Arlene is not getting an article. It is around 55kb in size. There is no button list because that is redundant to the Table of Contents. I folded the season summary section into the lead because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. I tossed the scale infobox because there was no room for it and it will be gone when the season finally ends. There are no whitespace problems in Firefox. Any comments? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the heading all to the left, I feel they should be aligned over the text. It looks better and helps seperate the sections a little better. --Holderca1 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this goes in the wrong direction. You have removed the very readible "season summary" section, and replaced it with the not-very-readible "storm summaries". Also I don't agree with removal of any pictures. If there's not room for all the pictures we have that's a sign a sub-article needs to be created! Jdorje 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, maybe I'm wrong - it looks like the season summary is just merged into the article summary (which I still disagree with, but it's not any worse than what we have now). Jdorje 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think you have that backwards, if the pictures don't fit, then you don't have enough text. --Holderca1 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I merged the Season Summary section into the lead section and the economic effects section. I also added the Harvey picture. But whatever the consensus says. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I made my own little (more ambitious) rewrite at User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Here I have removed the "Storms" section entirely (moved into individual articles). The "Season summary" is renamed as "storm summary" (which is what it is) and gets a table of storms to go along with it (which I have not yet filled out). All the specific info about individual storms is moved into sub-articles articles. I think the next step is to add more text about the season *as a whole*. Some restructuring is also still needed - the "storm summary" section has a lot of info about records and economic impact, for instance. Jdorje 01:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You use subpages for the storm articles; that is not allowed. --Golbez 02:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way, Golbez. Jdorje 04:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work what way, Jdorje? --Golbez 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jdorje? --Golbez 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpages are against Wiki policy for permanent content. See: Subpages#Allowed_uses. --Holderca1 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez I don't see the subpages you speak of. I see the main article links and that's it. I like the positioning of the main article links in Michelle's version, by the way, over left-hand side pics. That's much better that the current format. However, I don't like how the text at the top of the page is cramped into the crawlspace under the infobox to the right of the table of contents. That distracts and throws off the reader in my opinion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, nevermind about the subpages. I thought you were talking about Michelle's version. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also done a rewrite at User:NSLE/Sandbox (ignore the warning). Season summary is merged into the introduction, and the table of contents has been moved to the right where the SSS used to be. All the storms have been condensed, month-by-month, with storm articles listed at the top of each month before the storm summaries. Storm summaries have been cut down ("later that day" and similarly redundant sentences and phrases have been replaced by commas and tense changes), with each storm getting just one paragraph. These are no changes to the pictures, and the links to NHC's and HPC's archives are at the bottom of the monthly summary for all the storms. The article, including the warning at the top, is 54 kb in size. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that condensing the storm summaries actually loses information. So if someone wants to make a new article about some useless storm and then you want to merge it back into the main article, you can't because it's too long. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea. And on a related note, I was just today reading through the NHC monthly summaries (halfway down the page at [14]). Jdorje 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two ways to shorten an article, the first being the most obvious by removing content. The second way is to write more concisely. I believe the latter is what NSLE is referring to. I could write a two page article on Tropical Storm Lee, but what would be the point if you can say the same thing in a paragraph. --Holderca1 13:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But what we're talking about IS removing content, because most of the "storm history" is content that most people don't care about. Jdorje 16:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay then I am completely lost here. What content in particular are you talking about? I just trimmed down Arlene by about a third without actually removing any content. --Holderca1 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Right but it is still too long (or at least the article is too long, and shortening the storm summaries is one way to shorten it). If you look at NSLE's rewrite you'll see he has cut out a lot of the not-very-interesting text to shorten the storm summaries even more (and of course I did the same thing in my rewrite by leaving only the storm summaries from the "season summary" section). Jdorje 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(indent=reset)I guess I just don't see what the problem is, the storm sections are not any longer than the 2004 article and no one had any problems with it. What size would you like the article to be? NSLE said his version is 54kb, the current one we have now is 58, so the size between the two are not that much different. Just by removing all the individual links to the advisory archives and just have a single link to them all at the bottom trims it down to 55 kb.--Holderca1 19:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Section character count:

• Arlene - 1161 (Down from 1617 before I rewrote it)
• Bret - 1107
• Cindy - 1542
• Dennis - 1154
• Emily - 1012
• Franklin - 1040
• Gert - 882
• Harvey - 891
• Irene - 1501
• Ten - 603
• Jose - 901
• Katrina - 1159
• Lee - 651
• Maria - 1130
• Nate - 942
• Ophelia - 844
• Philippe - 777
• Rita - 1073
• Nineteen - 280
• Stan - 1042
• Tammy - 1514
• Twenty-two - 695
• Vince - 838
• Wilma - 869
• Alpha - 769
• Beta - 1225

Just fyi, gives a more accurate method of measuring the length of the sections. Another way to trim a section down without taking anything out is to remove the picture if the picture isn't all that great. The Arlene section still looks longer than Bret's section, but that is due to the picture since they both have similar character counts.--Holderca1 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I revised the rewrite, following some of your suggestions. I managed to squeeze more pictures in, and added an "Activity" section. The reason the lead is so long is so that there is as little whitespace as possible. I assumed that Arlene gets no article and that the records will be sent to a spinoff article. It is 48kb long. As before, the location is User:Michelle_T/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_rewrite. What are your comments and suggestions? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like that intro stuffed in that crawlspace to the right of the contents table and below the infobox. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Smushing the text like that is intended to get rid of a cloud-like sea of whitespace. I'll see if I can get rid of it. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried my own rewrite. It is 38 kb long, which I think is a managable length. Parts I've changed is getting rid of the Arlene, Cindy, and Alpha articles. I got rid of the links to NHC archive, simply because they are on the bottom. Like Michelle, I agree that there should be a separate link to a records section. I know I got rid of a lot of text (looks at Jdorje getting ready to kill me) but some of it is unnecessary. Without further ado, my rewrite. User:Hurricanehink/2005 Atlantic hurricane season rewrite Hurricanehink 15:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if we don't make a seperate article for records set, we can at least trim it up. For example, the records section says that Wilma was one of the most rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones in recorded history. As I see it, that fact makes the storm notable, not the season. After all, Super Typhoon Forrest intensifying rapidly doesn't necessarily make the 1983 Pacific typhoon season more notable than any other.

And I agree that the individual links to each archive can be compressed into one at the bottom with no loss of usefulness.

I like Hurricanehink's version, but with one small tweak. I like the way Michelle formatted the main article links for left-hand pictures: above the picture right below the title and indented (default). If we combine those two, I think the article would look great. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and completely agreed. The article is long enough as it is, and we should replace it with a combined version. Hurricanehink 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of Hurricanehink's changes don't seem to have removed any actual information (though I just skimmed through a diff of it), so I don't have any major objections. However:

• A few citations seem to have been removed... Shouldn't those stay?
• Is it allowed to change, for example, October 20 to "the 20th"? I was under the impression that those dates were linked like that so the Date Format feature could work?
• What happened to Tropical (and Subtropical) Depressions 10, 12, and 22? Were those blurbs not short enough?
• One should probably be prepared to let the links to the main articles of Cindy and Alpha to stand - the VfD for Cindy is failing, and I doubt any VfDs for the others would succeed.
• Those emdashes should remain as emdashes and not hyphens, probably.

AySz88^-^ 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Record

Believe it or not, this season does not appear to hold the record for tropical depressions. This NOAA document by Forecaster Avila appears to give records for tropical depressions from 1967-1990. According to it, there were 31 in the 1978 season, of all years. Not what I expected. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

31?! How is it that so few became tropical storms? Very interesting statistic; good find! --tomf688^{talk} 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, they had different criteria for TD's back then. Look at some of them, 29, 28, 23, 27. I am fairly confident that they were similar to modern invests, with some exceptions. From the 1967 article The National Hurricane Center numbered and tracked incipient or weaker tropical cyclones as an operational procedure for the first time in 1967. Hurricanehink 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Hurricanehink and also, the 1978 Monthly Weather Review makes no mention of any depressions. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Under those rules, there would have been at least 50 depressions this season. CrazyC83 19:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If those depressions would have been invests under the current system, then we would have had 42 tropical depression this year (I know, it's sad, but I did go back and count how many we had). If all 42 developed, Beta would have been Phi, and we'd be 3 storms away from Omega. Hurricanehink 20:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NHC/HPC external links

I fully agree with HurricaneHink that the NHC/HPC external links are not needed for all storms. This just clutters the article. A single link at the bottom links to the entire archive which provides easy links to all storm archives. Jdorje 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

True, true. --Golbez 07:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea, sorry if I offended anyone when I did that, but it does clutter the article. On the other hand, it helps the non-familiar user to find more info without going all the way to the bottom. Convience vs. Being Cluttered. It's a tough call that should be discussed. Hurricanehink 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's consider both sides here. We need to run down some pros and cons. Honestly do they really clutter the page up that much? They're only about two lines apiece. This is what we've always done regarding the storms. On the other hand, having just one link to the whole archive at the bottom of the page reduces redundancy considerably. Tough call, but I'm leaning toward keeping it the way it is. This page is supposed to be sort of like a 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season for Dummies. It shouldn't be just convenient for us hurricane freaks. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Storm tracks

Jdorje, is having a track for every storm useful? It will effectively double the number of images on an image-heavy page. Isn't the track map we get at the end of the season good enough (with the notable storms having their tracks in their own articles)? --Golbez 08:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well...possibly. However the end-of-season track map for this year will be rather useless because it will be so full (though they might split it up like they did with some of the Pacific charts). Additionally, this issue goes back to the separate-article argument: Arlene had the track map when it was a separate article, but this was removed when it was merged back in to the season article. Thirdly, the track map is more useful than the lengthy "storm history" for some storms, since this is information that is more easily presented in an image. Finally, for storms that do have separate articles, I see no reason why the storm path needs to be included (except for consistency, maybe). Note that although the tracks do mean an additional 23 images on the page, they are all small (thumb-sized). Jdorje 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a track map could be made for every storm, which would replace the satellite pictures (or no pictures) of the storms. Then, we could place the satellite pictures in a <gallery></gallery> format at the bottom of the article, or better-encourage the link to the wikimedia commons. --tomf688^{talk} 12:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Having the bulk of the article being only track images with nothing compelling to grab the eye would really boreify the article I think. --Golbez 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A track map has been made for every storm...but it doesn't replace the satellite pictures; they're both included. My question is, what are the disadvantages of this? (1) It means the page loads slower, because of extra pictures (this should not be a consideration IMO). (2) Getting 2 pictures to fit in one short section is a problem for some storms (this is a problem, but I think it can be resolved by fiddling with the placement of pictures and the length of text). What else? Jdorje 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jdorje, you have some good ideas, but I think you're overdoing the tracks just a bit. We don't need a track for every single storm. This isn't UNISYS. We should only add the tracks if it adds to the article. If they cause more problems than they solve, then they shouldn't be added. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My question is still: what are the disadvantages? Just because unisys has every track map doesn't mean wikipedia can't also. Jdorje 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I like the track maps, but they kinda mess up the hurricane images. For example, look what the track for Nate does to Ophelia's main image, it pushes it to the right, leaving a huge blank space. --Revolución (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Placing the images to fit together is an issue. I don't see the Nate problem you have...it probably depends on your browser, window width, and font size. But I moved the Nate image up a bit and this should help...unless someone has a browser window too narrow in which case it would conflict with the other Nate image. Jdorje 07:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why put track maps when there will be one at the end of the season? And isn't a majority of people's opinion of alternating storms picture because all of then at the right would be to crowded? But now we have some storm tracks at the right? tdwuhs

I personally thought the problem was more balance between the left and right sides of the page than crowding? Currently, the balance is no problem. Though the images do seem to get too crowded in some places...Emily's track runs into Franklin's text, for example. AySz88^-^ 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tdwuhs hit the nail on the head. These tracks to not originate from the best track data. They originate from the advisory positions given while the system was active. These are often inaccurate. The best track data differs from the advisory positions with almost every season. Case in point: look at the UNISYS track for Hurricane Claudette (2003) taken from the post-season best track data-[15]. Now look at the UNISYS track of it taken from the advisory positions during the season-[16]. See the difference? The given intensities are different too. Also, there will be a map of all the storms posted at the end of the season, which Tdwuhs pointed out. These tracks cause more problems than they solve. I say remove them. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But you still haven't pointed out any actual problems, Eric. Sure the best-track data will be more accurate than the advisory track data, and when the 2005 storms are added to the best-track I will upload the new tracks. But that has nothing to do with whether or not having the tracks is a good thing. Jdorje 04:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the tracks... good information for statistic nuts like me. -- Rylan 08:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They clutter the page, cause formatting problems and will be removed at the end of the season anyway (if not sooner), so what's the point of having them? The Cons seem to outweigh the pros here. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpages

All right, enough already! No more sub pages! We don't want an article on every single storm! That defeats the purpose of the main article. Articles should only be created if the storm is notable. This is getting ridiculous. I was bold and merged Arlene into the main article. I was tempted to do the same for Cindy before it was put up for a vfd. I don't want to become a subpage-Nazi, but if I have to, I will. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay! (Round of applause). 100% in agreement. Though the main page needs to be shorter, I would rather see the pointless pages go. Hurricanehink 18:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed...I made a sarcastic comment about when Arlene was created, where was the Cindy, Irene, Jose, Maria and Tammy pages? While you do that, go ahead and create the others, even lonely Lee (who has to really feel bad being stuck in Katrina's shadow and barely even getting the name)... CrazyC83 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I almost want to hug you! Thank you! I'll probably ask for Cindy to be merged back when its AfD fails. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why there is such a problem with having subpages for storms anymore. This page is very long, and I'm moving more towards having the storms on separate pages than on here so this article can devote more information to the overall affects of the season. Afterall, a beyond-stub article can be written on just about every one of these storms. --tomf688^{talk} 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Do one for Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and I'll agree :P NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 01:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hell, even that one can get its own article, IMHO. Whats the harm of having another set of stubs on Wikipedia, with a list of links to the storm articles on this page (to reduce the length of the article)? --tomf688^{talk} 05:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric, you weren't "bold" in redirecting Arlene to the main article, you were opportunistic. The best thing to solve the Arlene issue was to develop a set standard. We have two standards being thrown out about: length or notability. In some people's minds, an article only is created if it's a length issue. But at the same time, when an article is created because of a length issue (Arlene) the issue suddenly becomes notability. Be consistent, or don't bother squabbling over what gets an article if you can't make up your minds on the requirement for article creation. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to put in a vote for length as a standard. The fact is, there are dozens and dozens of articles in wikipedia, many of them about subjects we wouldn't find notable. However, someone has and they put in the effort to collect enough information to make an article. Wikipedia should encourage the addition of information, not limit it, as long as the information is reliable. I'm remaining neutral on whether storms such as Arlene have enough information (and I mean real information, not just formatting and filler to make the article longer) to warrant their own article, but clearly the consensus is that the summaries have reached a maximum length to remain in the season article. This means no further information can be added if they are not allowed their own article. If there's no further information to add, that's fine. Notability is subjective, but it goes together with length. If enough good information is out there that an article can't be condensed to a storm summary, then the storm is probably notable. PK9 20:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My only real question for those of you who hate the idea of subpages is this: if you think this information is so unnotable, why do you want it clogging up the main season article? Jdorje 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest xth storm ambiguity?

(There may be some disagreement here because NHC defines a late-season storm as any storm within 3 months of the end of the prior season, thus the Jan. 19, 1978 storm listed as the record for the earliest forming storm may, rather, be one of the latest forming storms since it technically is part of teh 1977 Hurricane season. If one prefers to deal with just a calendar year, this list would be safe; if one prefers the hurricane season definition, it might throw these records off.

From NHC web site:

E16) When did the earliest and latest hurricanes occur?

Contributed by Chris Landsea The hurricane season is defined as June 1 through November 30. An early hurricane can be defined as occurring in the three months prior to the start of the season, and a late hurricane can be defined as occurring in the three months after the season. With these criteria the earliest observed hurricane in the Atlantic was on March 7, 1908, while the latest observed hurricane was on December 31, 1954, the second “Alice” of that year which persisted as a hurricane until January 5, 1955. The earliest hurricane to strike the United States was Alma which struck northwest Florida on June 9, 1966. The latest hurricane to strike the U. S. was late on November 30, 1925 near Tampa, Florida. (Contribution from Blake et al. 2005.)

-- FunguyVA, 03:00, November 12, 2005 (UTC) (moved from article by AySz88^-^)

That would make a lot more sense if the E16 entry mentioned the January storm. Jdorje 07:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That would definitely change some of the statistical charts I used on my website if I were to adopt that premise - however, I'm happy with my stats as it is under the premise I used of year-to-year.

Besides, if you want to use Chris Landsea's definition (which is a perfectly good and valid definition!) just shave off any Jan or Feb storms on my lists :) --The Great Zo 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Button bars revisited

For any of the people involved in the project of adding button bars to all the seasons: can you please go through those seasons and fix those button bars? The current button bars use templates in the talk space, which is no good. Jdorje 08:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone also needs to update the 2005 button bar for TD27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:53, November 14, 2005 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 69.86.16.61

Added TD27. AySz88^-^ 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of systems making landfall

The '2005 Atlantic hurricane season (Active)' box says Number of systems making landfall 15(record).

Is this correct? The records_not_broken page says 1933 had 17 landfalling tropical storms. crandles 14:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some dispute in the measurements. It can be seen as low as 14 or as high as 17 depending on if extratropical storms are counted and when they turned extratropical. Clear landfalls were Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Gert, Jose, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Wilma, Alpha and Beta. Vince is often added as #15 although some may have thought it was extratropical when it hit Spain (a close call). The 16th to count is Ophelia - it was listed as officially extratropical when it reached Nova Scotia, but that is disputed (also some count the North Carolina hit as a landfall as the eyewall reached land even if the center of the eye did not). Maria would be the 17th; it was long extratropical when it reached Iceland and eventually Norway even though it was back to hurricane strength (possibly Category 2? pressure of 970mb suggests such). CrazyC83 16:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Extratropical systems often have much lower pressure. I've seen former tropical systems with tropical storm force winds have a pressure in the 970s. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

27!!

TD 27, is it?! My word, many heartfelt feelings from here to those who could be affected by this. I hope a little humour can be allowed here; as this page increases in size and the storms in number, anyone up for creating Atlantic Hurricane Season 2005 Part I Part II and so on? =) Well done to all those Wiki hurricane editors (Wikicaners? Hurripedians?) who have worked so hard with this article over the year. With all due respect, here's to a dull 2006!! doktorb 20:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, let's keep this thing in one piece. That's the way all the other seasons have been done. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Screwed Up Page

What the heck is going on here? How did the page get screwed up? Why is everything small, including the tabs at the top of the page? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem fixed. joturner 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The tabs are still small on the talk page. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 01:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Button Bar Broken

What happened to the button bar? All previous versions of it appear vertically on it's template page and I can't figure out how to fix it. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The HTML Tidy extension of MediaWiki was disabled because it was making the site crash, so all the pages with malformed HTML are not fixed automatically anymore. If someone is brave enough to go fix it, go ahead, but I'd rather take it out. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? The concerns over the people not knowing what the colors mean were addressed. I don't have any idea how to fix it. I'm sure someone does though. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure what, exactly, this refers to... I see no problems - have they already been fixed? AySz88 03:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, looks like it. Here are some pictures I captured of what it previously looked like: [17] [18] -- RattleMan 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The template itself (Template:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons) still appears to be broken. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 04:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not in IE, I just checked that; perhaps you're looking at a cached version, or does it break only in certain browsers? --AySz88^-^ 04:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)