Jump to content

Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stan2525 (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 2 January 2006 (→2005 or 2006). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Hurricane

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. See directly below for special discussion areas.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
Monthly Event Archives: June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Storm Event Archives: Katrina - Rita - Wilma - Epsilon
Specialized Discussion: /Records - /Speculation - /Betting Pools - /Records Not Broken
Other Basin Talkpages: Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian


December

Week 4

It looks like we are home free at last. Finally, the exhausted folks at the National Hurricane Centre, and all of us, can enjoy peace and quiet and a much-deserved holiday. Hopefully Mother Nature won't break in and call them in on Christmas Day or anytime around there.

Merry Christmas to everyone here and in the NHC and other places of interest!!! (or Happy Hanukkah, or whatever you celebrate) CrazyC83 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You too, and everyone else. :) --AySz88^-^ 21:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm late, you guys I wish too. -sigh- no more little suprises in the Atlantic, which is a huge relief. Bloing|talk17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Mother Nature decided that the exhausted NHC needs to have their Christmas break cut short...*sigh* CrazyC83 15:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Week "5"

30L.Zeta

AoI: E. Atlantic

Do I see some circulation in this convection bunch? Hmm... -- RattleMan 14:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. At least it only has a couple days left to develop into a 2005 storm. I expect it to fall apart at midnight January 1 when it loses the 2005-effect. :p :p --AySz88^-^ 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. This thing isn't even a low pressure area: [1], it's just scattered showers. It's also under 20-30 knot wind shear [2]. Now could we please stop fretting. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what on earth that was...it's way out in Vince territory! My estimate on chance of development: 5% into an Invest, 1% into TD30. CrazyC83 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is embarassing. I now find myself eating my words. But this thing seriously developed a low pressure center and significant convection literally overnight. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It fooled even me; I wasn't expecting it to become Zeta last night either!!! At least 2006 is just around the corner...but I don't know if the tropics will care... CrazyC83 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I won the pool.ColdRedRain 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
97L.INVEST

And, well, what do you know! It's an invest, ladies and gentlemen! [3] -- RattleMan 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Words cannot describe how I responded. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the image, the tag says 40kt, meaning if we get this before Sunday it's (Sub)Tropical Storm Zeta immediately. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 13:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TWD seems to agree that it could become Zeta: NSLE (T+C+CVU) 13:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...SPECIAL FEATURE...

1006 MB GALE LOW IS NEAR 24N36W IN THE NE ATLC MOVING WNW 5-10 
KT.  WELL-PLACED BUOY OBSERVATIONS NEAR THE CENTER INDICATE A 
MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 1006.7 MB AT 8Z WHEN THE SYSTEM PASSED... 
FALLING RAPIDLY FROM 0Z AND 10.1 MB IN THE PAST 24 HOURS.  FIRST 
VISIBLE IMAGES SHOW DEEP CONVECTION ORGANIZING IN BANDS AROUND 
THE CENTER AND IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS SYSTEM COULD 
BECOME "ZETA" BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.  SHEAR IS FORECAST TO 
REMAIN MODEST FOR THE NEXT 24 HOURS THEN INCREASE THEREAFTER.  
SSTS ARE MARGINAL.. ABOUT 23-24C BUT COOL 200 MB TEMPS COULD 
HELP TO BALANCE THE BORDERLINE SSTS.  A QUIKSCAT PASS AT 0752Z 
INDICATED WINDS OF GALE FORCE.. PROBABLY TO NEAR 40 KT.  
SCATTERED MODERATE CONVECTION IS WITHIN 100 NM IN THE NRN 
SEMICIRCLE AND WIDELY SCATTERED MODERATE IS WITHIN 150 NM IN THE 
SE QUADRANT.

-All I can say is WOW Weatherman90 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone say "Alice"? The big question is whether this will become Zeta or Alberto? IMO, if it becomes Zeta or Alberto, it should immediately get its own article on grounds of how rare it is.
Also, if we have monthly discussions in January, we should not mark the weeks down (just group it by months in the 2006 page) because of the limited information.CrazyC83 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I have no problems with that but we need to hunt down some information. I suggest we wait for the post-storm report on it before we create the article. So then we'd have detail info about its formation, existance and death. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Zeta

As I type this, The Weather Channel is announcing that Zeta has formed. Unbelievable end to an unbelievable season. --Patteroast 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And some confirmation from NHC: 

SATELLITE IMAGERY INDICATES THAT AN AREA OF LOW PRESSURE IN THE
EASTERN ATLANTIC HAS DEVELOPED INTO A TROPICAL STORM ABOUT 1000
MILES SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE AZORES.  A SPECIAL ADVISORY ON
TROPICAL STORM ZETA IS IN PREPARATION AND WILL BE ISSUED IN AN HOUR
OR SO.

--Patteroast 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...! No words...Alice has FALLEN... -- RattleMan 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is unbelieveable!!! A harbinger for things to come in 2006??? Because of its timing, I believe that we should immediately create the Tropical Storm Zeta article. Time to call in the crews from Christmas Break! (See the 2006 talk page for more discussion - a mid-winter surprise in Alberto?) CrazyC83 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What!? What!? I come back here to poke around and I see "Tropical Storm Zeta currently active." What!? - Cuivienen 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think actor Lloyd Bridges said it best in the movie Airplane!: "Looks like I picked a bad day to stop smoking." This is just insane! --Bushido Hacks 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Looks like I picked a bad day to stop drinking.", "Looks like I picked a bad day to sniff glue".Lets get back to the topic.HurricaneCraze32 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo the above comment with a line from Independence Day: "I picked a Hell of a day to quit drinkin'". I just logged on to the Internet about ten minutes ago and saw that the Hurricane Center had "Zeta" up. At first I thought, "This is a joke right?". Then I thought that this could be a test storm like the one in 2002. Then I saw the tropical disturbance statement below it and knew this was no joke or test. Apparently this hurricane season has no concept of rules, Climatology, or regulations. Watch it fall apart on January 1st. I think 'insane' is a little bit of an understatement now. This season is well past insane. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is certain, their probably alot of hurricane hunters who are ticked off right now because this is suppost to be their downtime. Regardless, the weather in the Atlantic has been unbelievable this year. One storm I was particluarly tracking this summer was Maria. However, the NHC transfers responsibility over to AWIPS (whoever they are), the marine weather office (which I'm not to familiar with), or to the World Meteorological Organization, who obviously ignore it unless Switzerland gets hit with a hurricane. Because NHC did not continue tracking Maria by declaring it extra-tropical when it was far from extra-tropical strength, they did not track Maria as it hit Iceland and Scandinavia where one person was killed. Just cause a storm loses its tropical nature does not mean that when it hits inland it is over. Katrina was a good example of this. Katrinas reminance traveled as far north as Canada and had flooded inland states including Kentucy, Indiana, and Ohio. While the National Weather Service is one of the best meteorological agencies in the world, it needs improvement. --Bushido Hacks 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Those storms are often at tropical storm strength, and sometimes (as with Maria) at hurricane strength, when such happens. Delta was another "forgotten" example - when it hit the Canary Islands and killed 7, the NHC had long issued their final advisory. Last year's Frances and Ivan were also infamous examples - they caused severe flooding up to 5 days after landfall! CrazyC83 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One should note that extratropical doesn't mean "weak", it just means it's not tropical anymore; you wouldn't really want to make the NHC track a blizzard that happens to have hurricane-force winds. The Tropical Prediction Center only specializes in tropical systems, after all. The NHC is already taking more responsibility than they really have to, too, since they have to cover basically all of North America.
I would hope they don't make the hurricane hunters fly out to the east side of the Atlantic Ocean, but I don't think they would. --AySz88^-^ 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, AWIPS is not a meteorological organization... it's a software program that the NWS uses. Secondly, "extratropical strength" is not a term they use, since an extratropical storm can be of any strength. The NHC's responsibility is to issue advisories on tropical cyclones, and regardless of a storm's strength or location, if it's extratropical, it's not their problem anymore to deal with.
The NWS has other offices, like the local offices and HPC, to worry about flooding concerns after a tropical cyclone moves inland. They do a great job of it, but usually on a local scale, so just because you don't hear about each individual flood warning on CNN doesn't mean that the areas effected aren't receiving proper forecasts and warning information. --The Great Zo 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances of this becoming Hurricane Zeta? CrazyC83 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyC83, everytime you speculate something that seems impossible, it comes true. I'll be checking for Alberto in early-mid January. —BazookaJoe 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None, the water temps are not high enough for this to become anything [4], in fact, accuweather shows this dissipating by tomorrow [5]. --CFIF 18:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Epsilon became a hurricane over 21-24°C water though, and Delta almost did over the same temperatures...am I giving the tropics ideas or something? Now let's try something that is DEFINITELY impossible, such as a Category 5 hurricane in the off-season...now if that ever happened, then you might as well make the whole year "hurricane season". CrazyC83 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Zeta and Alice are tied for the latest storm to form in the Atlantic [6]. They also say Zeta may not have even reached that, hinting that it could have been a storm earlier than thought. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We'll know for sure in the final report in January. It may take a historian to find out for sure! CrazyC83 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up a potential formatting problem for the timeline. If Zeta dissipates in January, are we going to put the dissipation entry in this article or the 2006AHS article? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put it in this article; that seems to be how the 1954 Alice was set up. It is officially a 2005 storm that is part of the 2005 season, regardless of when it dissipates. Also important news on storm intensities (i.e. if one of the near-hurricanes is upgraded) should be mentioned on that page, similar to when Gaston was declared a hurricane on November 19, 2004. The timeline is for the 2005 hurricane season; it should include everything relevant from that season, regardless of when it actually took place. CrazyC83 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should go into both; it's a storm from the 2005 season, but remember that once 7pm EST Dec 31 (midnight 1/1/06 UTC) hits, we are now in the 2006 hurricane season. --Golbez 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following E Brown's timeline thinking, what if it becomes a hurricane in 2006? (now 10% chance according to the estimates)? Many cyclones this year have exceeded the 10% probability threshold of the NHC's intensity charts. It's at 60mph right now (or is that knots?) According to the way we're thinking that would be a (oh I've lost count) 14th or 15th - 2005 hurricane...right? Hopquick 13:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<---- I think it would be called a 2006 hurricane, but a 2005 TS. Look at Epsilon. It was a November TS, but called a December hurricane. The same should apply between years. Hurricanehink 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


So It should be named hurricane Alberto by then? RoswellAtup

Its name will remain Zeta until it dissipates. --Golbez 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... What if it lost circulation and then regenerated? - Cuivienen 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We went over this with TD10->TD12, not to mention Ivan. If the new system can be conclusively determined to be formed from the remnants of the old system - as Ivan was - it retains its old designation. If there was any addition of another system - as TD10 was - it's given a new designation. --Golbez 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 PM Discussion: 

ZETA REMAINS LOCATED SOUTH OF WEAK RIDGING IN THE LOWER TO MIDDLE
TROPOSPHERE. COUNTERING THIS SLOW WESTWARD STEERING IS THE
CONVECTIVE ASYMMETRY...WITH THE RESULT THAT ZETA HAS MOVED LITTLE
THIS AFTERNOON. AS THE CONVECTION GRADUALLY WEAKENS...A SLOW
WESTWARD MOTION OF THE CENTER SHOULD RESUME IN THE LOW-LEVEL FLOW
UNTIL THE FRONTAL TROUGH APPROACHES IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. AT THAT
POINT THE REMNANTS OF EPSILON WILL LIKELY BE DEFLECTED NORTHWARD
AHEAD OF THE FRONT.

The remnants of Epsilon are still out there? Damn, he's more of a fighter than we thought :) -- RattleMan 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are they getting too excited or something??? If that is indeed true, the "remnants of Epsilon" must have made 3 or 4 loops and dropped to a few clouds and light rain...also the GFDL model (latest run) takes Zeta up to a Category 2 hurricane! CrazyC83 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say that the GFDL was correct about other storms this season such as Katrina, Wilma and Epsilon that the other models predicted would be weak storms or not develop. Cat 2 seems like an overestimate, but, if Zeta survives the current bout of shear, it'll have clear sailing for a while.
And a chuckle at Hurricane Epsilon. I think Franklin needs some sleep. - Cuivienen 05:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Zeta Jamie C 00:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! She nearly lost it but managed to hold on and may survive for quite some time in 2006... CrazyC83 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks like my prediction was exactly correct (including number of tropical storms and hurricanes), except for the predicted date of dissipation. --Revolución (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 PM Discussion: 

THIS IS LIKE PREVIOUS TROPICAL CYCLONE EPSILON ALL OVER AGAIN. MOST
OF THE CONVENTIONAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED THAT ZETA SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISSIPATED BY NOW...WELL IT IS NOT INDEED...AND ZETA IS PRETTY MUCH
ALIVE AT THIS TIME.

Uh oh :) -- RattleMan 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ACE record is looking to be within reach. Looking at the shear forecasts, Zeta will be in a low shear region in about 36 hours. If it can hold on that long it may be able to reach hurricane strength. - Cuivienen 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other Jan Storms?

I'm wondering if there have been any other storms in Jan besides for Alice and Zeta? Reub2000 04:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The impossible

I know this is almost certainly not going to happen (although I might be giving the tropics ideas, it is STILL 2005 after all), but what would happen if a storm was named at the 10:00 pm EST advisory on December 31 (0300 UTC January 1) - would it be named Eta or Alberto? CrazyC83 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto. They go by the UTC time. At least that's what I read. Hurricanehink 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is just plain strange.2 days before 2006 and the 30th Storm forms.Looks like its the season that wouldn't quit. June 8-December 31st maybe?HurricaneCraze32 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ONLY thing this season lacked was a pre-season storm like Ana. CrazyC83 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
December just hasn't seemed like much of a problem for 2005. In 2003, both Odette and Peter developed from the same unusually strong and tropical frontal system. Epsilon and Zeta developed from two seperate weather systems. I think the Atlantic was trying to break the global deadlock. The entire globe has been quiet for the past week or two. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the Template:Expletive??? I thought this was the off-season! I come and check, and bam, TS Zeta... I'm just speechless. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the 5pm discussion

"ALTHOUGH THE ATMOSPHERE SEEMS TO WANT TO DEVELOP TROPICAL STORMS AD NAUSEAM...THE CALENDAR WILL SHORTLY PUT AN END TO THE USE OF THE GREEK ALPHABET TO NAME THEM."

Indeed. No more Greeks. That doesn't nessisarily mean no more storms but no more Greeks. The next storm that forms in the Atlantic,(whenever that is), will be called Alberto. But I'm expecting a fresh round of insanity next year though. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Letter Society has 27 hours to keep producing, and I don't see anything else out there with even a remote chance of development...safe to say Zeta is the end of the road. (Then again, we've closed the book once and surprise!) CrazyC83 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zeta developed from clear skies to a tropical storm basically overnight; over a period of about 12-16 hours. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Zeta isn't anywhere near the end of the Greek alphabet, the 'Z' name brings this storm to an appropriate end to this season. Americanadian 09:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, official end of the hurricane season is November 30 but in recent years, December storm (or storms!) seem to have become norm rather than exception (noteworthy that long-time average for November storms is just 0.5 storms). I realize that we probably are just at the peak of the activity cycle, but if next few years feature December storms too, will they extend "official" season? --Mikoyan21 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that same thing. Perhaps they could extend the season into December 15 or something. It probably won't happen, but if this December activity continues for several more years, then it might. bob rulz 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a special advisory within 2 hours could create Tropical Storm Eta now. CrazyC83 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

looks like my prediction was exactly correct (including number of tropical storms and hurricanes), except for the predicted date of dissipation. --Revolución (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified ToC

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

{{ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}}

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

Check out my (beta) version of the ToC here. -- RattleMan 06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both of these options and with the opinion that it's too long. For one thing, both options omit the storm strength from the ToC. --Golbez 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the ToC tell the strength of the storms? Isn't that the purpose of the storms section? The ToC is just a navigational tool, not a source of information. -- Cuivienen 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It offers much more context than just a name, thus aiding navigation within the article. (Note that this was one of my complaints with the button bar - they lacked context, giving you only a color and a letter.) --Golbez 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The proposed reformating above would reduce the TOC size by eliminating the storm subsections. Another option would be to replace the "===" surrounding the storm titles with "<h3>" and "</h3>". This would create the same visual effect but would eliminate the individual storms from the TOC. As for the proposed revised TOC: I find it to be dense and clumbsy. Let's deal with the underlying issue, namely that the storms section itself is a mess, and one way or another needs to be tabularized. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with tabularizing it, every solution I've seen looks ugly (IMO) and doesn't help the supposed problem at all. I don't think we should be using hacks, either. What's wrong with having a long article and a long ToC? --Golbez 17:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ToC is, ultimately, what's causing the excess of white space at the top of the article. With a smaller ToC we can move the SS scale into the summary section and have a reasonably small amount of white space at the top of the page. -- 168.229.34.40 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ToC is too long because the article is too long. Wikipedia is not paper; there's no reason not to use structured articles here. Jdorje 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I disagree with both TOCs above. If we either took out the == == heading format, or convert to the tabular format above, this problem would be solved since the TOC would be much shorter. --tomf688{talk} 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

How about the button next to the name - second one in User:AySz88/Sandbox? It gives the strength of the storm, like Golbez wants. --AySz88^-^ 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (Oh, that's only a rough idea, so don't just dismiss it because it's ugly.) --AySz88^-^ 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the above options, but I still prefer the normal ToC. For one thing, as I've said about the button bars, it relies too much on categories. "Oh, "S" whatever S is was white, must not have been major." At least the normal ToC is somewhat neutral on that front (Before you ask - there is a structural difference between tropical storms, tropical depressions, and hurricanes, but not so much between a category 1 and a category 3). I do not want to assume the reader can figure out the colors, or categories, or what not; I only assume the reader knows how to read, which is why I tend to dislike the tabular options here. There is still such a thing as prose on this pedia, rather than rote information. (And then there's the obvious accessibility concerns - using color as a method of imparting information is frowned upon, not everyone using Wikipedia can see/has color.) --Golbez 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about using "TS" / "TD" / 1-5 instead of the initials, or add a column for number of deaths? --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not liking the direction this is going. Let's try not to divert too far from the standard. --tomf688{talk} 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe just split it into columns for now? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be objectionable. --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see creating a 4-column TOC, with one entry per cell. The leftmost column would navigate people to the main sections. The next three would navigate people to the storms. With nine navigation rows per column, you would have rows 2 and 3 full with the A - T stroms, and the V, W, and greek letter storms in the last column. It may look nice.
On the other hand, do not go off adding statistics to the TOC. That is not what it is there for. What you can do is to create a season overview table, with one storm per row. The columns could be dates, maximum winds, lowest pressure, landfall(s) (when, where, storm stregth at landfall). Perhaps one of you may wish to play with this.
Finally do note that I thank that the best way to deal with the Storms section is to tabularize it as shown above. Note that this would not conflict with the breifer table that I am suggesting here, since the two would contain different information. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good idea in the least. Wikipedia has a standard TOC box used in every article, and it is not necessary or wise to make one specifically for this article. If the TOC is too long, it should be a message to you that either A) the article is too long and needs to be split into subpages, or B) there are too many subheadings. --tomf688{talk} 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subheadings for the storms and replaced them with plain, bold, size 4 text in hopes that it will resolve the TOC issues. --tomf688{talk} 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's just me, but I reverted it because it caused the SS templated to merge with text. NSLE (讨论+extra) 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No issues for me. If anyone else wants to test it, it's located here: [7] --tomf688{talk} 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't correct - see Wikipedia:Section#Compact_TOC. I interpret that to mean you're allowed to condense long ToCs into lists. --AySz88^-^ 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fixed mine up a bit - second one at User:AySz88/Sandbox. Feel free to edit and suggest improvements. It really condenses the size of the ToC vertically. --AySz88^-^ 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version very much - it really solves the vertical length problem without losing any of the ToC content (and it looks much better than the usual ToC). - Cuivienen 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one has stated the obvious...the ToC is too long because the season had too many storms. I'm sorry...perhaps we'll just ignore say...Lee, Maria, Alpha, Epsilon... LOL... Just because 2005 was extraordinary, does not mean that normal ToC conventions should be thrown out. Instead, we should marvel with awe at the power of the 2005 Atlantic (mostly Gulf of Mexico) Hurricane Season. Hopquick 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. All of the seasons' ToCs have the same problems, it's just that it's far more obvious with this specific one. There's also a reason why we can remove the automatic ToC - so we can come up with a better one. --AySz88^-^ 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I like the universal ToC. Gives wikipedia a nice standardized feel. Hopquick 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}}

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

I have a few things left on my todo (shift links from buttons to names, make code more like {{Saffir-Simpson small}}, perhaps templatize buttons, and maybe make links only to within 2005AHS). Of course, that does not preclude including it in the article while improving it at the same time. --AySz88^-^ 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering adding links directly to the pages for Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Stan, Wilma, Alpha, Beta and Gamma to it on the storm names, though it might be better to simply make the internal page link on the storm name. Button templates sound like an unnecessary complication, IMO, although they would make it easier to replicate such a ToC for future seasons. - Cuivienen 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The link should be to the section of this article, not to an external article; that's the point of the table of contents. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it.

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

Could not possibly agree more with Revolution. There is nothing wrong with what we got. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, the one we have right now is idiot proof. That one is too confusing, out of order, and makes the article even more graphics intensive than it already is. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, there aren't any graphics in it, and please be more specific with what the problems you see are (what do you mean by out of order?). We've gone through the problems with the current ToC before, I think, such as too much whitespace and poor alignment. --AySz88^-^ 15:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind if I turn of the Toc? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)--Freiberg[reply]

The one that's on the article, without replacing it with anything? Yes, I do mind, it is a violation of the Manual of Style guidelines. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my ToC posts in the other Toc section...why are there two? Someone should make a subpage. Hopquick 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the first sentence of Cuivienen's post as to why she created a new section. And yeah, it's about time for another archive. --AySz88^-^ 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AySz88: "...there aren't any graphic in it." Uhh, so? Does there have to be? I thought we all grew out of that after kindergarden. The page is very graphics intensive as it is. Let's not make it worse. What I meant by 'out of order' (which I thought was quite clear) was that the storms section and the other sections are treated like they're on different planets. The See Also and References links come before the storms section. And the way that template's formatted won't allow that problem to be easily fixed. The links are too small, it would conflict with the infobox if placed where the current TOC is. And, going back to Revolution's point, I don't see a problem with the one we have now. If you're doing this just to put colors in there, it's a waste of time. I have yet to see a reason to replace the one we have. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd meant was that I'm not sure how something is "graphics intensive" if it doesn't have any graphics - it's just a table, not some on-the-fly animation with 10^5 polygons.
The storms section and the rest of the article kinda are on different planets; that was the point I'd been trying to make weeks ago.
I was already planning to move the links from the numbers to the names eventually, which would make the links bigger.
Previously, it was already said that:
  • There's too much vertical whitespace and scrolling with the current ToC
  • It's too difficult to locate storms alphabetically with the current ToC, since the "Hurricane", "Tropical Storm", etc prefix causes the names to dance left-right as you go down. I'm not sure if everyone suffers from the effect, but I'd conjecture that a new user would also get annoyed with squinting through a big list of text.
  • The new ToC tends to make it easier to locate major storms
The break between groups of links can be shifted up to make things somewhat "in order".
I see what you mean by the conflict between the infobox, but that can be easily changed by moving the infobox up. The related-article "Statistics" link also wouldn't be needed anymore if we put it within the ToC (we have several of those, don't we? "Timeline", "Records"....).
--AySz88^-^ 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the left and right dancing you're refering to. I just see a list of storms. Nor do I see the vertical white space. I do see how the new one could make it easier to locate major storms, because the one we have now assumes that the reader knows their names. But isn't that kind of spliting hairs? How big of a problem is that? If we shifted the infobox up, then it would be out of line with the text. It's very hard to shift the pieces of the puzzle around, so to speak, but not impossible. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the featured article criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurricane Dennis

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

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

Our Next Featured Article

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

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

New Footnote Formatting

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

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

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

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

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

New Footnote style

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

Old in-line links

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

Limited number of footnotes

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

Old-style when current, reformat later

  1. CrazyC83 17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (it's easier to have the links there when we have a current storm, but it looks better with the footnotes below, so that should be reformatted when everything calms down)[reply]
  2. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC), it should be done, but only after all the flurry of activity is over. By the way, Hurricane Dennis is undergoing that same process. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Katrina report

The post-season analysis report on Hurricane Katrina is finally out and there are a few changes.

First, Katrina never made landfall as a Category 4 (That's a bunch of BS in my opinion), but instead hit Buras, Louisiana as a strong Cat 3 with 110 knot winds (roughly equal to 125 mph).

Also,It hit Buras with a minimum pressure of 920 mbars instead of 918 mbars.

It then made landfall at the MS/LA border with 105 knot (120 mph) winds and a minimum pressure of 928 mbars.

-Fableheroesguild 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link? I don't see it on their list of released reports. --tomf688{talk} 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it either, and I doubt it was a Category 3. If anything, it was stronger, more like 130-135 knots at Buras and 120 knots at the MS/LA line. I have no idea where they are making their estimates from. CrazyC83 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I have it downloaded to my computer, but now I don't see it anymore either. Maybe they're fixing it, realizing it really wasn't a Cat 3. (sarcastically) This really helps out my credibility. Fableheroesguild 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number that blows that all away: wind gust of at least 110 mph (95 knots - instrument broke) at the Jones County EOC in Laurel, MS, more than 100 miles inland and 5 hours after final landfall. If the sustained winds were, say, 80 knots (90 mph - strong Cat 1) at that point (to assume the strongest winds were not recorded), the decay chart suggests that Katrina was around 135 knots (155 mph) at landfall - high-end Category 4. I personally would mark it down at 130 knots (150 mph) at Buras landfall, as a slight compromise. The Pearlington landfall I would mark at 120 knots (140 mph). CrazyC83 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing those charts are designed based on a smaller hurricane. In fact the whole SSS claims to predict storm surge, but fails to take into account size. Refer back to our discussion at Talk:Hurricane Wilma#894.2F155. Jdorje 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found it - [8]. --Golbez 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm starting to understand something - had Katrina been stronger Category 5 storm at landfall, but much smaller, it would have been far less catastrophic - except for the wind damage. That also explains why Charley and Andrew were primarily wind-makers. If you transposed Charley's size and intensity on Katrina's path, my guess is that you'd see catastrophic wind damage in Plaquemines Parish and in the I-59 corridor, but New Orleans would have largely been spared and areas farther east, such as Mobile and Pascagoula, would have seen relatively little damage, as the storm surge wouldn't have been nearly as intense. Anyway, I am sure that they are going to go back and look at all that again, after all there isn't a whole lot of information to work with, as the wind gauges were all torn off and the radar was lost before the strongest winds reached the areas. CrazyC83 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a hurricane that's a circle with radius 15 miles with wind speed 175 mph throughout (i.e., Wilma near peak strength), and another hurricane that's a circle with radius 120 miles with wind speed 100 mph throughout (i.e., Katrina at landfall), the latter hurricane has 20 times more kinetic energy. And I think we can all agree that it is kinetic energy that blows things around and causes storm surge! (excerpt from Talk:Hurricane Wilma#894.2F155). Jdorje 10:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*groans* I bet some people hurt by Katrina might take offense, and there'll be political consequences since those levees were famously supposed to withstand a Category 3 landfall. Anyway, time to edit Hurricane Katrina. --AySz88^-^ 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing it does say: that sustained Category 4 winds WERE reported at the mouth of the Mississippi, while the eye was offshore. It had clearly JUST weakened from Cat 4 to Cat 3 as it reached Buras. In addition, the levees were NOT overtopped, but they broke - it wouldn't have mattered if Katrina was a tropical depression at that point...Pontchartrain would have invaded. I've done some substantial editing already to the Katrina page (not the subpages). Still, the inland figures make those numbers suspect...I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot of controversy for a long time. Remember, the winds did very little of the catastrophic damage! CrazyC83 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did lots more editing at that page :p (though I didn't touch the subpages either; I wouldn't know where to look for the meteorlogical stuff among all those pages). --AySz88^-^ 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the levees protecting the lower 9th ward were overtopped, courtesy of the storm surge coming straight up the MRGO as many had foreseen. From the transscipt of the NOVA episode "The storm the drowned a city" [9]:
At about 7 a.m., a massive storm surge charges into eastern New Orleans. A 15-foot wave is funneled up the Intercoastal Waterway and smashes into the Industrial Canal like a runaway train. The earthen levees around the canal are first overtopped and then scoured away by the force of the water.
OTOH, the flooding that got most of the attention was due to the canals off of Lake Ponchartrain bursting due to the pressure of the much higher-than-normal water, something that should not have happenned at all. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A former Category 5 making landfall as a Category 3 is going to be more destructive than a Category 3 making landfall at peak intensity. This fact has repeated itself throughout history. Here's an example: Hurricanes Ivan and Jeanne made landfall at the exact same intensity, yet Ivan was far more destructive (in the US at least). You might point out Frances' previous romp as the main reason. I disagree with that assesment. Frances was more of a wet event...a very wet event. Jeanne was your average major hurricane. Haiti aside, there was little setting Jeanne apart aside from historical statistics. Ivan on the other hand had built up an immense amount of cyclonic energy. A ball rolling down a long hill is going to have more force at the bottom than a same-sized ball rolling down a shorter hill. The same holds true for hurricanes. Another thing, if you've been pushing your hand through the snow longer, you're going to have a bigger snowball, right? Think of the ocean as snow. When Katrina had its Category 5 hand, it made the snowball really big. When it began weakening, it was still building up that snowball, just at a slower rate. That snowball was the storm surge. Katrina's storm surge was 28 feet (I don't know where the 35-foot figure came from). It penetrated six miles inland! Camille's went half that far. A storm surge that big is like having a nuke, no matter how big you are. I'm not saying the strength of the storm at landfall is irrelevant, had Katrina been stronger, the surge would have been bigger but a Cat 5 hitting land at any intensity is going to be unusually destructive. I have a rule of thumb now that says if you have a Category 5 hurricane (or a strong Category 4), whatever intensity it makes landfall at, bump it up one Saffir Simpson category to get a good idea of the probable damage. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The victims of Hurricane Katrina were in fact very lucky. Katrina all but committed suicide prior to landfall. An inner eyewall formed and ate away the stronger outer eyewall instead of absorbing its energy and replacing it as is the norm during an eyewall replacement cycle. And I got that info from the report. I can't imagine it being any worse than it was, but it very well could have been. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would have made any difference if it made landfall with 125 mph winds as opposed to 175; the storm surge did most of the damage. The only possible difference would be a longer trail of damage inland. CrazyC83 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And possibly more damage to the high-rises in New Orleans. --tomf688{talk} 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category 5 would have been worse, because it would have caused major wind damage in New Orleans in addition to the flooding. The flooding probably wouldn't have been any worse and the storm surge probably wouldn't have been much worse. bob rulz 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The flooding probably would have been worse because Lake Ponchetrain would have creasted at a higher level. Also the storm surge would likely have been higher because more kinetic energy would have been built up. Why are we pondering what ifs anyway. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q,U,X,Y and Z names

Why not the next Atlantic hurricane season use names with Q,U,X,Y and Z instead of the greek letters?

I´ve been checking names with those letters and there are some:

Q: Quinta, Queen, Quarry, Quirke, Quillen.

U: Uma, Ulises, Uriel, Urim, Uzai.

X: Xavier, Xena, Xina, Ximena, Xuxa, Xerxes.

Y: Yolanda, York, Yani, Yael, Yuridia, Yuri, Yvel.

Z: Zelda, Zeke, Zoe, Zeb, Zara, Zared, Zair, Zion, Zibbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.221.14.86 (talk)

This subject has been brought up in the /betting pools section. It's best that it stays there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quarry ----> that's the stupidest name i've ever heard... User:RoswellAtup
Roswell, please register, log in, and sign your posts using 4 tildes (~~~~). That's the only real way we can be assured of your identity, and there's other benefits too. Thanks. --AySz88^-^ 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Colors

Not sure where to bring this up, but the new colors for the SS Scale are very colorblindness-unfriendly. I can't easily tell the difference between the most of the colors and can't tell the difference at all between TD and TS. - Cuivienen 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why were they changed in the first place? --CFIF 03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#Overcoloration - we can still change them. --AySz88^-^ 03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I agreed that the original colors were very bright, but I also mentioned that I hated the easter egg colors. Those new colors are just sickening and cannot stay. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needing citation for Adrian -> Arlene

Couldn't find one on a quick google. Several news sources say that Adrian could become Arlene. "If Hurricane Adrian crosses Central America without breaking up, it would become reclassified as an Atlantic storm and be called Arlene.

"We'd say the first one disappeared and then another one formed," Martin Nelson, a lead forecaster at the National Hurricane Center west of Miami, told the Orlando Sentinel. "It really would be two different systems." Sun-Sentinel and "Only if the system should maintain tropical cyclone status throughout its passage over land would it retain the name Adrian in the Atlantic basin". NHC discussion on Adrian, which obviously didn't happen.

But nothing that tells me Arlene formed from the remnants of Adrian. A forum post says it didn't, but that's not citable. "Passage over land disrupted the circulation and caused the system to become disorganized; once it emerged into the NW Caribbean, it became entrained in the upper-level trough and never redeveloped. Nevertheless, it became the precursor for what has shaped up to be an active season.

Early June brought about the season's first tropical storm, Arlene, from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean on June 8th." [10] --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 09:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is this post supposed to be about? Where does it say that Adrian became Arlene? bob rulz 10:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Arlene could have developed from the remnants of Hurricane Adrian, the first storm of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. [Citation needed]" I'm gonna remove that. --Golbez 10:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...who put that in there? bob rulz 10:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 20:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New infoboxes-having pic probs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32

The link to the updates i made to those infoboxes. I added the Catgeory that was their peak intensity and even made a link to the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Read the link. And give me your opinion,.

user:HurricaneCraze32

Uh, I absolutely don't think the ACE of the storm, which is a rather quite useless value, should be included in the infobox. However I do think the idea of adding the highest category could be a good idea; see User:Jdorje/Sandbox. However I haven't quite figured out how to do this in the context of the templates while still making it work across all basins. I'm okay with using the US-centrism of applying the SSS to typhoons and tcyclones in all basins, but it's not correct to call them "hurricane"s. Jdorje 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similar "useless" values are in a lot of other infoboxes, such as the Effective radiated power thing for broadcast stations (see WWL-TV). If someone puts it in as an optional value, I don't see the harm. --AySz88^-^ 16:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Looks like nobody listed the hurricane box at Wikipedia:Infobox. --AySz88^-^ 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i had trouble getting the ace rating in the table-i did it right-it didnt show up for some reason. Now i've also added the storm number to the infoboxes.I was actually able to make a lot more. They're missing pics though.

User:HurricaneCraze32

Take a look at [11]. It looks really good... Jdorje 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just replace our Infobox with Modèle:Cyclone? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that easily, because we don't want to break all of the hundreds of infoboxes we have now and I'm not too excited about making a new one from scratch. However I've started merging in some of the new fields that they have...changing the formats (colors) is another thing to be done. Jdorje 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, the winter is the time to make changes (those are AMAZING)...and yes, now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS, including fish-spinners and tropical depressions...I might make sandbox articles for Arlene, Bret, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, TD10, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, TD19, Tammy, TD22, Delta and Epsilon... CrazyC83 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the infoboxes have pics now, something's wrong with Harvey,Maria and Phillippe. There's no pic for the TD and STD's.Update:Maria,Phillippe and harvey's pics have been replaced by paths and most of the others are ready for use.

HurricaneCraze32 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we going to put them, on their own separate articles? CrazyC83 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS" There's your answer right in your own sentence. HurricaneCraze32 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All completed. Just inform me on anymore things to add.Lemme put them in ok.HurricaneCraze32 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first of my test-articles are completed. The links to completed ones will be added below (italics indicate article already exists):

Arlene - Bret - Cindy - Dennis - Emily - Franklin - Gert - Harvey - Irene - TD10 - Jose - Katrina - Lee - Maria - Nate - Ophelia - Philippe - Rita - TD19 - Stan - Tammy - TD22 - Vince - Wilma - Alpha - Beta - Gamma - Delta - Epsilon- Zeta

I started with those three because Maria and Epsilon were long-lasting storms with long and interesting stories and TD19 was probably the least notable storm of the season and I wanted to test what an article would look like for a storm that did nothing and quickly would be forgotten. CrazyC83 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt it be easier to at least add the storm number to the infobox like i have.HurricaneCraze32 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think adding the storm number to the infobox is appropriate, because numbering depends on what is considered to be an enumerable storm and that varies by basin and time. Storms in a different basin or from older seasons may not be numbered the same, and thus renumbering is possible. Jdorje 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are individual storm articles though. CrazyC83 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus i think we're gonna need a color for STD. (Because of 22)HurricaneCraze32 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same as for a tropical depression. Likewise when we get to 2004, Nicole will get the same color as the tropical storms. We should disregard the prefix "sub" and treat them as tropical. CrazyC83 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the new track maps, the color only indicates wind strength. Tropical/subtropical/extratropical are indicated a different way. In the infoboxes this should be done simply in text. However the {{{type}}} and {{{category}}} fields of the infobox are not set up to handle subtropical or extratropical...though this can be fixed once there's a sample infobox user to test it out on. Jdorje 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still think it would fit in:There's been notable ones:
1972
--------------
Subtropical Storm Delta
Subtropical Storm Alpha

2000
--------------
Unnamed Subtropical Storm

2005
-------------
Remnants of 22 and Tammy flood the Northeast

HurricaneCraze32 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some information that got removed from some of the summaries in this article were noted in the talk pages of the redirects; I think one's at Talk:Tropical Storm Harvey (2005). I don't think I noticed them all, so it might be wise to dive into the history. --AySz88^-^ 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.By any chance, does anyone know the mbar of hurricane Erika (1997)HurricaneCraze32 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the best track file. You can download it from NHC or from UNISYS. Jdorje 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best track file?HurricaneCraze32 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)have a link?[reply]

New section to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32#Infoboxes_of_Storms_left_for_Forgotten.28Except_Epsilon.29

(Epsilon is in the way) HurricaneCraze32 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles on every storm is a BAD idea. We've been over this before. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Let's not do this again. I've had my share of headaches dealing with all this obsessive subpage nonsense the first time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the least notable storms do not meet any of those criteria listed. This is an educational site, and it is meant for people to learn about things like this. CrazyC83 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
m:Wiki is not paper and Wikipedia:Summary style. (I wish I had those links the first time around.) --AySz88^-^ 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with the above. If we have the information, it should be inserted. Separate articles allow the season page to maintain summary style. There is no reason why information should be kept out of Wikipedia that is not vanity information. Tropical cyclones are not vanity information. - Cuivienen 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy i just thought of something. Because Tammy and STD22 worked toghether why dont we just put them toghether. Both Infoboxes in it. 22 Still needs a pic.Can someone find that pic for me? The teamwork storms of 2005. If you havent started theirs lemme do it.HurricaneCraze32 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a couple of changes-you've been using mine right.HurricaneCraze32 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I've added the year to the formed/dissipated dates, removed the storm number and made a few corrections (although the major corrections were already done on your talk page). CrazyC83 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go straight to making Zeta one ok.

HurricaneCraze32 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more comfortable if we'd wait for the final report before making an article on it. That would give us more than basic information and records to put in the article. And I'm still against articles for every storm and always will be. Many of the storms were so boring that the info on the main page is basically all we got. So for storms like that (Leecough*) should not have an article. I'm against having articles for Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Nate, Maria, Philippe, and Tammy and partially against ones for Jose, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta. All based on lack of info. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant an infobox and i have to agree with something. Crazy you seem awfully hyperHurricaneCraze32 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a bunch of talk about new articles and I was expressing my dissent. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fail

Under the purpose of translating this articel to danish i have discovered a minor fail in the article (or just som unclearness). Under the section "Mid-season-outlook" it is stated that Dr. Gray followed suit whit NHCs update. It appears to me this is the first time NHC is mentioned in the article, and im therefore in doubt whether its NOAA og NHC there is issuing the forecast, or whether there is referenced to NOAA forecast there is mentioned just before... Hope someone either will take the troble to explain a stupid dane or make the sentence more precise. Thanks Jonatanj 14:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC (National Hurricane Center) is a subdivision of NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association); they're the same thing in this article. joturner 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but is it to the reader not better to use the same name or make this thing clear? Jonatanj 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's true which is why I'm glad someone changed it. I was thinking of doing it myself earlier, but it seems like NOAA and NHC have both been used quite a few times in this article. joturner 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency, I substituted NHC with NOAA. No more problems. :) --tomf688{talk} 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have just spelled out National Hurricane Center instead of putting NOAA in there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The next FA

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

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

Infrared-Optical Pictures

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Emily all have infrared pictures, while the rest have optical pictures. Is there a reason? Are the four abovementioned storms given infrared pictures due to their strength? Or could no others be found? Merely looking for continuity mroe than anything else, I'm unsure if such an agreement has previously been reached. -- Sarsaparilla39 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I personally hate infrared satellite pictures. When possible, it should be visible, which show a truer form of the storm. Hurricanehink 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like seeing different pictures. Satellite pictures over and over again get boring; some variety is good. Jdorje 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also like having a variety of pictures shown. Visible is only a "truer form" in that it's what you can actually see. However, infrared will show you more of the actual structure of the storm. Also, my personal favorite imagery for viewing hurricanes is color-enhanced water vapor imagery, which produces some amazing images for hurricanes. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z named Zeta

Is this the first 'Z' name storm in the Atlantic? Should that be mentioned? SargeAbernathy 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, but Zeta is not "Z name storm", like for example Zelda, because letter Z is not used for storm names in the Atlantic Basin (also letters Q, U, X, and Y are missing). Zeta is just the 6th letter in the Greek alphabet. Since no Greek letters have been used earlier, it may be pointless to mention that every time.--Jyril 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As early as 2006, it would be 'Zeta' or 'Alberto'?

If Zeta remains in activity as far of January 1st or 2nd of 2006, could the storm still be named as Zeta (2005) or the storm will became Alberto, the 1st official storm of 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.232.131 (talk)

It stays Zeta. That's also what happened with Hurricane Alice in 1954-55. CrazyC83 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did steal the name Alice from 1955, but I agree that the name is maintained. - Cuivienen 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there weren't any satellites back then and Alice was caught on January 1 but was later proven to have developed on December 30. CrazyC83 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in, but don't wiki to know how to start a new topic. Is there a way to get to read the Tropical Storm Zeta Advisory Archive? The National Hurricane Center's link isn't working. 66.47.77.94 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, 66.47.77.94! You're right that the NHC's link for Zeta is not working. Try here: [12]. However, you won't be able to see any advisories between 5 pm AST last night and today as their archive doesn't seem to be updating (it's supposed to be automated). Update: The link actually is working now, but you still can't see any new advisories. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they rename it? That would be too confusing. The present naming system may be stupid, but I'd doubt they'd be that anal about it. :-P Good kitty 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say because it formed in 2005, they would keep the name Zeta. --Revolución (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last and final topic about ACE restoration

If Zeta survives the shear, as one model predicts, and lives to become a hurricane, then it is possible that we can have the #1 ACE season. Then it would be significant to restore ACE charts and ACE values. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum but with it approaching the 243 mark (it's currently at 240), it is now a possibility that we have the #1 year. I know the storm counts as a 2005 storm, but does the 2006 info for Zeta apply to its ACE number? And the season ended 4 minutes ago...right?! Hopquick 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It counts to 2005, just like Alice2. --24.83.100.214 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I thought. Wow. That ACE number is getting so big. :) Hopquick 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Zeta

Is Jurricane Zeta causing any trouble on trans-atlantic flights? Is states: "She has been weakened", so I assume not. --Kilo-Lima 14:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta never became a hurricane, and yes, it weakened. I don't know about its causing any trouble on trans-Atlantic flights, although I hardly think that it would, as it is at a relatively low latitude. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta formation time

Why is the formation time of Zeta given with "c." (circa) in the timeline? Other storms give formation times without that abbreviation. Previous practice appears to be to give the time of the first public advisory as the formation time, without qualification by "c." --Cam 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the time is given with the circa notation is because the exact time that Zeta formed has not yet been determined and/or confirmed. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'This year' references

Fixed references to 'this year' as, although Zeta is active, the season has officially ended. Feel free to revert those if you feel it's not appropriate, yet, but please leave the merging of discussion of devastation. Happy new year! :)--Dan (Talk)|@ 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Zeta

Is it me, or does Zeta, in that pic, look a bit too organised and circular for a tropical storm? XYaAsehShalomX 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more than Harvey did Jamie C 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me it doesn't look too organized in the picture, as it definitely wouldn't qualify as a minimal hurricane or even a strong tropical storm, in my opinion. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma

Doesn't Digamma follow epsilon? So what happened to this hurricane?--God_of War 18:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma is an obsolete letter, so that letter wasn't used. --AySz88^-^ 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, but then again, I only found out about the letter digamma after I came to Wikipedia.  :) --King of All the Franks 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my time we used it every day - It troubles the soul to relearn your mother language every century.--God_of War 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite - it's the normal way of counting things to leave Digamma in. For this one purpose, Digamma isn't obsolete. However, you can't expect people to know how to count in Greek properly... 82.36.26.229 05:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of November Storms

The article currently says:

2005 also set a new record for most storms forming in November, with 3 storms (Gamma, Delta and Epsilon); the old record was shared by six years, most recently 2001.

Didn't 2001 have 3 in November? ( Hurricane Michelle becoming a tropical storm on Nov 1, N & O ) crandles 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also have we got different records to mention such as most storms forming after 30 September, and after 31 October? crandles 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct re:2001 and Michelle - it became a tropical storm on November 1. CrazyC83 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eta

Let's say Eta forms, do they name it Alberto? --Revolución (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eta can't form, it's 2006. If a storm forms now, yes, it would be Alberto. --Golbez 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment

File:Galaxy.m74.arp.750pix.jpg
The first ever Galaxy of Stars Award for Collective Accomplishment. Shazaam!

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

Gah!! Galaxy... Looks like hurricane... Make the season END! ;-) - Cuivienen 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to have a well-developed eye, so it's probably not quite a hurricane yet, Cat 1 max. :p :p :p --AySz88^-^ 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably has a well-developed eye, but there is low-level cloud cover obstructing its view... :P Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reference

Why does main article: Tropical Storm Zeta in the Tropical Storm Zeta section link to it's own article (this one)? 218.214.23.223 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 or 2006

RE: Timeline -- Quote: "For continuation of Zeta, see Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season." I find this inappropriate. For Zeta is a 2005 storm and should only be refered to as a sidenote on the 2006 page. Recommendations? Hopquick 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on both pages, for convenience of users? --AySz88^-^ 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's nothing new to mention about Zeta yet. Strengthening and weakening could be added on both pages when it comes up. - Cuivienen 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta is a 2005 storm, so thus Zeta should only be casually mentioned, but not treated as if it were a storm of 2006, as is the case currently on that page. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=33562774"